Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 02-06-2020 in case of petitioner name M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and vs Hindustan Copper Ltd.
| |

International Arbitration and Foreign Award Enforcement: Key Ruling in Centrotrade vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.

Updated on

The case of M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India concerning international arbitration,
enforcement of foreign awards, and the interpretation of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case revolved around the enforceability of a foreign arbitral award rendered in London and the validity of a two-tier arbitration clause.

The dispute arose when a contract between Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc., a U.S.-based company, and Hindustan Copper Ltd., an Indian public sector undertaking, led to arbitration over the quality and quantity of the copper concentrate supplied.
The contract provided for a two-tier arbitration mechanism, with the first arbitration taking place in India and, if contested, a second arbitration in London under the ICC Rules.

Background of the Case

Centrotrade entered into a contract with Hindustan Copper Ltd. for the supply of 15,500 DMT of copper concentrate to be delivered at the Kandla Port in Gujarat.
The contract contained a two-tier arbitration clause:

  • The first arbitration would be conducted in India under the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA).
  • If either party was dissatisfied with the first award, an appeal could be made for a second arbitration under the ICC Rules in London.

After disputes arose regarding the dry weight of the copper concentrate delivered, Centrotrade invoked arbitration.
The ICA arbitration resulted in a “Nil Award,” meaning no compensation was granted. Dissatisfied, Centrotrade invoked the second arbitration in London.

Legal Provisions and Key Issues

The case primarily involved the following legal provisions:

  • Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: This section provides the grounds on which the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award can be refused.
  • Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: This section was examined regarding the validity of a two-tier arbitration clause.
  • New York Convention, 1958: Since the London award was a foreign award, the principles of the New York Convention were considered.

The Supreme Court had to determine:

  • Whether the two-tier arbitration agreement was valid under Indian law.
  • Whether the foreign arbitral award was enforceable in India despite a conflicting Indian award.
  • Whether Hindustan Copper Ltd. was given a fair opportunity to present its case in the London arbitration.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioner, M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc., argued the following:

  • The two-tier arbitration mechanism was a valid contractual agreement and must be honored.
  • The ICC arbitration in London was conducted fairly, and Hindustan Copper Ltd. was given multiple opportunities to present its case.
  • The London award must be enforced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as it complied with the New York Convention.
  • The Indian “Nil Award” could not override the foreign award, as the contract explicitly allowed for a second arbitration.

Arguments of the Respondent

The respondent, Hindustan Copper Ltd., presented the following arguments:

  • The two-tier arbitration clause was invalid under Indian law as it allowed an appeal in arbitration, which is not permitted under Indian arbitration principles.
  • The ICC arbitration violated principles of natural justice since Hindustan Copper Ltd. was not given adequate opportunity to present its case.
  • The enforcement of the London award should be refused under Section 48(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows refusal if a party was unable to present its case.
  • The conflicting Indian “Nil Award” made the London award unenforceable.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant legal provisions and previous judgments before delivering its verdict. The key findings of the Court were:

  • The two-tier arbitration clause was valid under Indian law and was not contrary to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
  • The ICC arbitration in London constituted a valid foreign award enforceable under the New York Convention.
  • Hindustan Copper Ltd. was given adequate opportunities to present its case. The delay in submission of documents by Hindustan Copper Ltd. was due to its own actions and not due to procedural unfairness.
  • The “Nil Award” from the Indian arbitration did not affect the enforceability of the London award since the contract allowed for the second arbitration.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed Centrotrade’s appeal and ruled that the foreign arbitral award be enforced in India.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign awards in India:

  • It affirms that two-tier arbitration clauses are valid and enforceable in India.
  • It reinforces India’s commitment to the New York Convention and the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
  • It clarifies that procedural delays and refusal to participate in arbitration cannot be used as a defense against enforcement.
  • It sets a precedent for future cases involving conflicting domestic and foreign arbitral awards.

Conclusion

The judgment in M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. is a landmark ruling in international arbitration law.
The Supreme Court upheld the principles of party autonomy and the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards, reinforcing India’s pro-arbitration stance.
This ruling provides clarity on the validity of two-tier arbitration agreements and ensures that parties cannot evade arbitration agreements by contesting procedural fairness after failing to participate actively.

By enforcing the London award, the Supreme Court has strengthened India’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, promoting international trade and dispute resolution mechanisms.
This case will serve as a guiding precedent for future arbitration disputes involving multinational contracts and cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards.


Petitioner Name: M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc..
Respondent Name: Hindustan Copper Ltd..
Judgment By: Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: Kandla Port, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 02-06-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ms. Centrotrade Min vs Hindustan Copper Ltd Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-06-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Awards
See all petitions in International Arbitration
See all petitions in Enforcement of Awards
See all petitions in Commercial Arbitration
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Enforced
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution Category

Similar Posts