Supreme Court Rules on Arbitration in Infrastructure Dispute: Gangavaram Port vs. Duro Felguera

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of M/s. Duro Felguera, S.A. vs. M/s. Gangavaram Port Limited, clarifying the application of arbitration clauses in infrastructure contracts. The case involved a dispute between Duro Felguera, a Spanish company, and Gangavaram Port Limited (GPL), regarding the expansion of facilities at the Gangavaram Port in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

The primary legal issue was whether multiple arbitration agreements in different contracts should be consolidated into a single arbitral tribunal or whether separate tribunals should be constituted for each contract. The Supreme Court ruled that each contract must be treated separately, emphasizing the limited role of courts in appointing arbitrators post the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Background of the Case

In 2011, Gangavaram Port Limited issued a tender for the development of Bulk Material Handling Systems at the port. The tender was awarded to Duro Felguera, which later partnered with its Indian subsidiary, Felguera Gruas India Private Limited (FGI). Initially, the project was part of a single tender document (Package No. 4), but later, it was divided into five separate contracts:

• Package 4: Supply of Bulk Material Handling Equipment (Duro Felguera, Spain).
• Package 6: Design, Manufacture, and Installation (FGI, India).
• Package 7: Civil Works (FGI, India).
• Package 8: International Transportation and Logistics (FGI, India).
• Package 9: Installation and Commissioning of Ship Unloaders (FGI, India).

Additionally, Duro Felguera executed a Corporate Guarantee ensuring the performance of all contracts.

Arguments of the Appellant (Duro Felguera)

Duro Felguera argued that:

• Each contract contained an independent arbitration clause under Section 20.6 of the agreement.
• The contracts were distinct, covering different aspects of the project, and could not be consolidated into a single arbitration.
• The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in 2012 was only for administrative clarity and did not override the arbitration clauses in individual contracts.
• Separate arbitration tribunals should be constituted for each contract.

Arguments of the Respondent (Gangavaram Port Limited)

GPL countered that:

• All five contracts were interlinked and part of a single composite transaction.
• The MoU should be interpreted as binding all contracts under a single arbitration agreement.
• Having multiple arbitration proceedings could lead to inconsistent awards and unnecessary delays.
• A single international commercial arbitration tribunal should be constituted for all disputes.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duro Felguera, stating that:

“The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 has restricted the Court’s power to appoint arbitrators only to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. The existence of five separate contracts means that there must be separate arbitral tribunals.”

Further, the Court held that:

• The MoU did not explicitly include an arbitration clause and could not override individual contract clauses.
• Since Package 4 involved a foreign party, it would be governed by International Commercial Arbitration.
• The disputes under Packages 6 to 9 (executed by FGI) would be resolved by separate domestic arbitration tribunals.
• The Corporate Guarantee had an independent arbitration clause and required a separate tribunal.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• Two International Commercial Arbitration Tribunals should be constituted for disputes involving Duro Felguera.
• Four separate Domestic Arbitration Tribunals should be constituted for disputes involving FGI.
• The arbitration clause under each contract should be followed strictly.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The ruling establishes several important legal principles:

1. Limited Court Intervention: Courts should only examine the existence of an arbitration agreement and not interfere in contract interpretation.
2. Independence of Arbitration Agreements: Even in related contracts, arbitration agreements must be honored separately.
3. Multiple Arbitrations in Complex Projects: In large infrastructure projects, multiple arbitrations may be necessary if different contracts exist.
4. Impact of the 2015 Amendments: The Court reaffirmed that post-2015, the role of courts in arbitration proceedings is minimal.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for arbitration law in India:

• It strengthens the autonomy of arbitration agreements.
• It ensures that businesses entering multiple contracts cannot be forced into a single arbitration unless expressly agreed.
• It sets a precedent for handling disputes in large infrastructure and engineering projects.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Duro Felguera, S.A. vs. M/s. Gangavaram Port Limited is a landmark ruling that reinforces the importance of honoring arbitration agreements as drafted. By refusing to consolidate separate contracts into a single arbitration, the Court upheld the sanctity of contractual autonomy in commercial disputes. This case serves as a vital precedent for arbitration proceedings in complex infrastructure projects.

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

Download Judgment: Ms. Duro Felguera, vs Ms. Gangavaram Port Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-10-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Act
See all petitions in Commercial Arbitration
See all petitions in International Arbitration
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2017
See all petitions in 2017 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