REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2011
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7562 OF 2011
YOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ... APPELLANT
Vs.
SSANGYONG ENGINEERING &
CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. ... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. Interlocutory Application No.3 of 2011 has been filed by
SSANGYONG Engineering & Construction Company Limited in
disposed of Civil Appeal No.7562 of 2011, seeking
clarification and correction of certain clerical errors in
the judgment passed by this Court on 1st September, 2011,
under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
2. Mr. Dharmendra Rautray, learned Advocate-on-Record, who
had earlier appeared for SSANGYONG Engineering &
Construction Company Limited, submitted that in paragraph 5
of the aforesaid judgment it had been mentioned that his
clients had filed an application before the Sole Arbitrator
on 5th June, 2010, for interim relief under Section 17 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Mr. Rautray pointed
out that the said application had been made not under
Section 17 of the above Act, but under Rule 24 of the SIAC
Rules and the same would be evident from the application
made before the sole Arbitrator in SIAC Arbitration No.37 of
2010, by the Respondent, being Annexure-B to the present
application.
3. Mr. Rautray then submitted that through inadvertence, in
paragraph 35 of the judgment, it has been indicated that
there was no ambiguity that the SIAC Rules would be the
Curial law of the arbitration proceedings and that the same
had been subsequently clarified in paragraph 37, wherein
while indicating that the arbitration proceedings would be
governed by the SIAC Rules as the Curial law, which included
Rule 32, which made it clear that where the seat of
arbitration is Singapore, the law of the arbitration under
the SIAC Rules would be the International Arbitration Act
(Cap. 143A, 2002 Ed, Statutes of the Republic of Singapore).
Mr. Rautray submitted that it was a clear case of
inadvertence in paragraph 35 that needs to be clarified by
indicating that the Curial law is the International
Arbitration law of Singapore and not the SIAC rules.
4. It was also pointed out that in paragraph 36 of the
judgment in the sentence beginning with the words "In Bhatia
International (supra)...", it had been indicated that while
considering the applicability of Part I of the 1996 Act to
arbitral proceedings where the seat of arbitration was in
India, this Court was of the view that Part I of the Act did
not automatically exclude all foreign arbitral proceedings
or awards. Mr. Rautray submitted that as would be evident
from reading the judgment as a whole, this Court had
intended to indicate that where the seat of arbitration was
"outside" and not "in" India, the said portion of the
sentence should read "where the seat of arbitration was
outside India".
5. It was lastly submitted by Mr. Rautray that in paragraph
4 of the judgment it had been mentioned that an application
had been filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the 1996
Act before the District and Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur,
Madhya Pradesh, whereas such an application had been made by
the Respondent.
6. Mr. Rautray submitted that the aforesaid clarification
and corrections are required to be made in the final
judgment.
7. However, on behalf of Yograj Infrastructure Limited it
was urged that except for the clarification sought for with
regard to the Rules applicable to the arbitral proceedings,
the other clarifications could be made.
8. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties, we are inclined to agree with Mr.
Rautray that the corrections and clarifications sought for
have to be allowed. In particular, the observations made in
paragraphs 35 and 37, if read together, indicate that,
although, when the seat of arbitration was in Singapore, the
SIAC Rules would apply, the same included Rule 32 which
provides that it is the International Arbitration Act, 2002,
which would be the law of the arbitration. Accordingly, it
is clarified that while mention had been made in paragraph
35 that the Curial law of the arbitration would be the SIAC
Rules, what has been subsequently indicated in paragraph 37
of the judgment is that International Arbitration Act of
Singapore would be the law of the arbitration.
9. The judgment and order dated 1st September, 2011, be read
and understood on the basis of the corrections and
clarifications hereby made in this order.
10. The interlocutory application filed on behalf of
SSANGYONG Engineering & Construction Company Limited, is
allowed and disposed of accordingly.
................................................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
................................................J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
New Delhi
Dated: 15.12.2011
