Supreme Court Enforces ICC Foreign Award, Upholds Two-Tier Arbitration Clause

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the two-tier arbitration clause, recognized the ICC award as a foreign award, and concluded that HCL had been given ample opportunity to present its case. Centrotrade's appeal was allowed, HCL's appeal was dismissed, and the foreign award dated 29.09.2001 was ordered to be enforced.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the two-tier arbitration clause under Indian law.
2. Interpretation of the two-tier arbitration clause and whether the ICC arbitrator acted as an appellate authority.
3. Classification of the ICC award as a foreign award.
4. Whether HCL was given a proper opportunity to present its case before the ICC arbitrator.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Two-Tier Arbitration Clause:
The two-tier arbitration clause, as per Clause 14 of the agreement, was contested for its validity under Indian law. Initially, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court had differing opinions on this issue. S.B. Sinha, J. found the clause invalid under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, while Tarun Chatterjee, J. upheld its validity. The matter was referred to a three-judge bench, which concluded that the two-tier arbitration process was indeed valid and permissible under Indian law.

2. Interpretation of the Two-Tier Arbitration Clause:
The interpretation of whether the ICC arbitrator sat in appeal against the Indian arbitrator's award was also debated. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Tarun Chatterjee, J.'s view that the ICC arbitrator did act in an appellate capacity, thus interpreting the two-tier arbitration clause as allowing an appeal to the ICC arbitrator in London.

3. Classification of the ICC Award as a Foreign Award:
The classification of the ICC award as a foreign award was another point of contention. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court initially held that the London award could not be considered a foreign award. However, the Supreme Court, agreeing with Tarun Chatterjee, J., concluded that the ICC award was indeed a foreign award, thus making it enforceable under Indian law.

4. Opportunity for HCL to Present Its Case:
The crux of the matter revolved around whether HCL was given a fair opportunity to present its case before the ICC arbitrator. The ICC arbitrator, Jeremy Cook QC, extended multiple opportunities to HCL to submit their defense and supporting evidence. Despite these opportunities, HCL delayed and submitted documents beyond the stipulated deadlines. The arbitrator considered the late submissions but did not accept further documents sent even later.

Justice Tarun Chatterjee, J., in his judgment, found that HCL was not given a fair opportunity, citing delays not attributable to HCL and the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, the three-judge bench, in reviewing the matter, found that the arbitrator had acted fairly and within his procedural rights. The bench emphasized that procedural orders must be adhered to and that HCL's inability to present its case was due to its own actions and not due to any procedural unfairness by the arbitrator.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside Justice Tarun Chatterjee, J.'s judgment, which had found in favor of HCL on the grounds of procedural unfairness. The court upheld the validity of the two-tier arbitration clause, recognized the ICC award as a foreign award, and concluded that HCL had been given ample opportunity to present its case. Consequently, Centrotrade’s appeal was allowed, HCL’s appeal was dismissed, and the foreign award dated 29.09.2001 was ordered to be enforced.

---