Delhi High Court
Steel Authority Of India Ltd ... vs Danieli Corus Bv on 29 April, 2019
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 29.04.2019
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 22/2018 & CM APPL. 4553/2018
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD (SAIL) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Mr.
Wasim Ashraf & Mr. Ashwani Bhalla,
Advocates
versus
DANIELI CORUS BV ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Moonmoon Nanda, Mr. Atul
Shrivastava & Mr. Azhar Alam,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned
Single Judge of this Court on a petition filed by the respondent under Section
9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The operative part of the order of
the learned Single Judge reads as under:
"20. In view of the above, I pass an ad-interim order
restraining the respondent or its agents in any manner
disclosing to a third party the proprietary drawings/information
and/or drawings/information which bears disclaimer:
"All Rights Reserved. This is a commercial
drawing and is supplied for use for an authorised
job. This drawing or any information therefrom
shall not be disclosed, used or reproduced either
wholly or in part, except in conjunction with such
use and with the prior written consent of Daniel
Corus. This drawing may not be used for
construction or fabrication until signed as checked
and approved."
21. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
22. I may, however, hasten to add that my above observations
are prima facie in nature and in no manner bind the Arbitral
Tribunal who shall adjudicate the disputes between the parties
on their own merits. Either party would be free to raise any
further claims, submissions, defence or pray for interim relief
from the Arbitral Tribunal which would be constituted in terms
of the Arbitration Agreement."
2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that after the agreement came to an
end, the respondents had restrained the appellant from buying spare parts
from the open market. He submits that the necessity of buying spare parts
from the open market has arisen on account of the exorbitant price being
charged by the respondent for the spare parts knowing fully well that in the
absence of spares, the running of the furnace would come to a standstill.
3. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction
and has failed to take into account that a general order concerning 17000
drawings could not have been passed. He further submits that serious
prejudice has been caused to the rights of the appellant, which is a public
sector undertaking.
4. It is also pointed out that parties had entered into an agreement dated
02.10.2008 for setting up of 1x4060 cubic meter Blast Furnace No. 5
(package No. 010) under 4.2 Mtpa Crude Steel Expansion project at
Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela.
5. Mr. Dutt, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has
pointed out that post the order passed by the learned Single Judge, an
arbitrator was appointed, who is seized of the matter; the matter has been
argued and reserved for judgment on 28.02.2019, and now, time has been
extended by the ICC upto 31.05.2019 to render the award. He further
submits that in any case the impugned order is interim in nature and it would
merge in the final award. In effect, Mr. Dutt submits that should his
statement of claim be allowed, directions passed in the award would hold the
field and correspondingly, should the statement of claim be rejected then the
interim order would automatically stand vacated.
6. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel submits that this order
would continue to remain a judicial order and may cause prejudice to his
rights. Mr. Dutt disputes this submission made by the learned senior counsel
for the appellant. He submits that the parties would remain bound by the
award.
7. We are unable to appreciate this submission of learned senior counsel
for the appellant for the reason that as Mr. Dutt has rightly pointed out that
should the arbitrator reject the claim petition, this order would automatically
become a nullity and should the claim petition be allowed, the said order will
hold the field and the interim order would merge in the final order.
8. In view of the subsequent developments i.e. arbitration proceedings
having come to an end, the matter being reserved for rendering of the award
by 31.05.2019, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. We however make
it clear that final award between the parties would hold the field and the
interim order would merge in the final order.
9. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. We make it clear
that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
G.S.SISTANI, J
JYOTI SINGH, J
APRIL 29, 2019
rd
