NDLI: Mmtc Ltd. Vs. M/s Vedanta Ltd.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	37 arbitral award Arbitration and Conciliation Act pre and post 2015 amendment s.34 Scope of interference 1996
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.34, 37 – Scope of interference with an arbitral award in India – Pre and Post amendment made to s.34 in 2015, position explained.Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s.34, 37 – In terms of Arbitration agreement dated 14.12.1993, the appellant was appointed as a consignment agent from whom respondent could avail services such as storage, handling and marketing of the copper rods produced by the respondent – Appellant used to raise invoices in the name of customers and remit the sum received to the respondent after deducting its services charges – The agreement was altered later, and the amendment enabled appellant to supply goods to customers against the letter of credit and it was total responsibility of the appellant to credit the sale proceeds to the respondent –Dispute in the instant matter pertains to supplies made by the appellant to Hindustan Transmission Products Ltd. (HTPL) after the amendment of the arbitration agreement – Since the payment was not made by HTPL to appellant and who also subsequently did not make payment for the supplied goods to the respondent, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause under agreement dated 14.12.1993 – Arbitral tribunal passed award in favour of the respondent which was confirmed by the High Court – In the instant appeal, the case of the appellant was that it used to supply the goods of the respondent to customers as per agreement dated 14.12.1993 only – However, the appellant had to make deviation from this procedure at the request of the respondent by allowing the customers arranged by the respondent to lift its goods stored in the appellant’s godown and in such case, the appellant was not bound by the contract since such contract was independent from the agreement dated 14.12.1993 – Held: It is evident from the subsequent agreement between HTPL and the respondent that a direct agreement existed between them – However, the appellant received its commission in its entirety for the HTPL transaction, and thus clearly was a beneficiary of the agreement between the respondent and HTPL – Series of correspondences amongst appellant, respondent and HTPL also revealed that the appellant was also actively involved in the transaction in question entered into between the respondent and HTPL, and as such was a beneficiary under their agreement –The issuance of letters of credit in the name of the appellant with respect to the HTPL transaction was similar to the practice adopted in case of letters of credit or demand drafts issued in all other transactions, whether directly negotiated by the respondent, or procured through the appellant, which suggested that it was the duty of the appellant in this case as well to ensure that letter of credits issued were bona fide, and in case of stand-by letters of credit, that they were negotiated in time in case of failure of payment on the due date, in terms of agreement dated 14.12.1993 – In this view of the matter, it is not open to the appellant to argue that the agreement between the Respondent and HTPL was independent of the agreement dated 14.12.1993 between the appellant and the respondent and that the latter did not apply to such transaction –Thus, there was no reason to disturb the award on the ground that the subject matter of the dispute was not arbitrable.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 218
Petitioner	Mmtc Ltd.
Respondent	M/s Vedanta Ltd.
SCR	[2019] 3 S.C.R. 1023
Judgement Date	2019-02-18
Case Number	1862

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mmtc Ltd. Vs. M/s Vedanta Ltd.

Please Log-in to view this content

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of Goa

State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.

State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sal Udyog Private Limited

M/s. Navodaya Mass Entertainment Ltd. Vs. M/s. J.m. Combines

M/s Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok S Dhariwal and Others

Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Etc.

Ntpc Ltd. Vs. M/s. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd.

Swan Gold Mining Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.

Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Mmtc Ltd. Vs. M/s Vedanta Ltd.

Mmtc Ltd. Vs. M/s Vedanta Ltd.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State of Goa

State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.

State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sal Udyog Private Limited

M/s. Navodaya Mass Entertainment Ltd. Vs. M/s. J.m. Combines

M/s Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashok S Dhariwal and Others

Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Etc.

Ntpc Ltd. Vs. M/s. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd.

Swan Gold Mining Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.

Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Mmtc Ltd. Vs. M/s Vedanta Ltd.