Compensation under a take-or-pay clause requires proof of loss, and a late arbitral amendment may be refused for delay.

Compensation under a take-or-pay clause could not be sustained without pleading or proving loss, because Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act requires a legally sustainable basis for reasonable compensation, and no material showed loss from non-supply of ethanol; the damages award was set aside. Reimbursement of sales tax was also unsustainable since the liability had not finally crystallized and the demand was later set aside, so the consequential relief could not survive. The arbitral tribunal's refusal to permit a highly belated amendment of the counterclaim was upheld, as Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act allows rejection where delay makes the request inappropriate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the award of damages under the take or pay clause could be sustained without pleading or proving loss, (ii) whether the reimbursement of sales tax paid to the authorities was sustainable, and (iii) whether the arbitral tribunal rightly /declined the belated amendment of the counterclaim.

Issue (i): Whether the award of damages under the take or pay clause could be sustained without pleading or proving loss.

Analysis: The clause was treated as a liquidated-damages stipulation, but the entitlement to compensation still depended on the governing principles under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Reasonable compensation cannot be awarded as a matter of course where actual loss is capable of being proved. HPCL neither pleaded that loss was difficult or impossible to prove nor led material to establish loss from non-supply of ethanol. The award therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The award of damages under the take or pay clause was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the reimbursement of sales tax paid to the authorities was sustainable.

Analysis: The sales tax liability had not finally crystallized when the award was made, and the record showed that the demand was later set aside. Since the underlying liability itself did not survive, the consequential reimbursement could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The award granting reimbursement of sales tax was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the arbitral tribunal rightly declined the belated amendment of the counterclaim.

Analysis: Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits amendment or supplementation of claims or defences unless the tribunal considers the request inappropriate having regard to delay. The request was made at a highly belated stage after the pleadings had closed and the matter had reached final hearing. The refusal to permit amendment was therefore justified.

Conclusion: The rejection of the amendment application was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award could not survive on the monetary reliefs granted, while the refusal to allow a late enhancement of the counterclaim remained undisturbed. The petitions succeeded to the extent of setting aside the award.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation for breach under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 requires proof of loss or a legally sustainable basis for treating the stipulated sum as genuine pre-estimate, and a belated amendment of arbitral claims may be refused under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on account of delay.

---