TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the High Court set aside the award dated 14th February 2014, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and the order passed by the District Judge dated 25th February 2016, rejecting the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeals are as under: The Respondent No. 1-The Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust, Tuticorin (hereinafter referred to as 'TPT') issued a global tender on 9th April 1997, inviting bids for development of the Seventh Berth at V.O. Chidambranar Port, Tuticorin as a Container Terminal and for operating and maintaining the same for 30 years on a Build, Operate and Transfer (hereinafter referred to as 'BOT') basis. In response to the tender, the Appellant-PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SICAL') submitted its bid on 24th October 1997. The financial offer was submitted by SICAL on 19th December 1997. Since SICAL's offer was the highest, the same was accepted and a Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as 'LoI') was issued to it on 29th January 1998 and the same was followed by a L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was subject to a maximum of the amount quoted by the next lowest bidder. This was also to be allowed only for the period up to which such likely loss would arise. It further provided that this would not be applicable if there is a provision in the concession agreement on treatment of royalty/revenue share. 6. On 17th August 2005, a Memorandum of Compromise (hereinafter referred to as the 'MoC') came to be filed before the Madras High Court between SICAL, GoI and TAMP who were parties to the Writ Petition Nos. 40637-40639 of 2002. As per the said MoC, SICAL was to submit a proposal to the Ministry of Shipping and Transport, GoI in the matter of permitting royalty to be allowed to be factored into cost while fixation of tariff for the period prior to 31st March 2005. It was also clarified that for the period thereafter, new guidelines provide the manner and mode in which this has to be done. The MoC provided that on receipt of the proposal, the Central Government would consider the same and pass appropriate orders consistent with the policy decision of the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'GoI') in the matter of Chennai Container Terminal Limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 22nd August 2007, Writ Petition Nos. 38845 and 38846 of 2006 were allowed by setting aside the TAMP order dated 23rd August 2006 and the GoI directive dated 17th April 2006. The said order was passed on the ground that SICAL was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard by TAMP and GoI and therefore, directed TAMP and GoI to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the SICAL. 11. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, the GoI issued a directive on 20th February 2008, therein considering the contentions raised on behalf of SICAL. The said directive provided that TAMP, while fixing the tariff in case of SICAL, should take into consideration the benefit given in the case of CCTL. 12. TAMP vide notification dated 26th February 2008, notified the guidelines for upfront tariff fixation for Public Private Partnership projects at Major Ports. 13. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court dated 21st August 2007, the Chairman, TPT passed an order on 25th April 2008, observing therein that any change in the bidding parameter is a matter of policy regarding which a decision can be taken only by the GoI and in effect, rejected the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from demanding or recovering any royalty at an escalated rate. In July 2011, SICAL addressed a letter to the Chairman, TPT requesting for referring the dispute for arbitration Under Article 15.3 of the License Agreement. The said request came to be rejected by the Chairman, TPT vide communication dated 28th September 2011. 17. In the meanwhile, the proposals submitted by SICAL as well as TPT were being considered by the Expert Committee. On 30th April 2012, District Judge, Tuticorin passed an order thereby allowing the Section 9 petition filed by SICAL and made absolute the ad-interim injunction granted in its favour. Thereafter, there was exchange of certain communications between SICAL and TPT with regard to the submission of performance bank guarantee at an escalated rate. In the meantime, TPT challenged the order of injunction granted by the District Judge by filing an appeal being C.M.A.(MD) No. 1131 of 2012 and the same is pending consideration before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. SICAL addressed a letter dated 19th November 2012, invoking arbitration Clause Under Article 15.3 of the License Agreement. In the meantime, on 8th August 2013, TAMP issued 2013 Gui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e project, the Licensee may, by written notice, request amendments to the terms of the agreement. He submitted that the definition of law in Article 14 is wide enough and includes any valid act, ordinance, rule, Regulation, notification, directive, orders, policy, bye-laws, administrative guidelines, ruling or instruction having the force of law, enacted or issued by Government Authority. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Article 14.3 also provides that subject to the provisions of Article 15.3, the Licensee shall not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever from the Licensor as a result of change in law. He submitted that if Article 14.3 is read in the correct perspective, it will be clear that compensation is not provided to the Licensee on account of any change in law inasmuch as a relief could be provided to the Licensee by suitably amending the terms of the agreement when such a change substantially and adversely affects the rights of the Licensee. He submitted that the said Article is a unique one. 22. Dr. Singhvi submitted that the Nhava Sheva Container Terminal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'NSCT') was the first project which was built on BOT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f has been so fixed that it surpasses the amount of royalty per TEU, SICAL would be required to pay to TPT. He submitted that if the same is permitted, SICAL would not be in a position to continue its operations. He submitted that SICAL has provided a minimum guarantee to lift a minimum of 4.5 lakh tons of cargo. He submitted that this has been rightly appreciated by the Arbitral Tribunal wherein it has observed that if such a position is permitted to continue, it will substantially and adversely affect SICAL. He submitted that a chart at Page No. 1132 shows that SICAL would incur a gross loss of Rs. 2250 crores. He further submitted that TAMP and the GoI have acted in a discriminatory manner. He submitted that when in case of NSCT, a complete pass through so far as royalty is concerned, is permitted, the same is denied in case of SICAL. 25. Dr. Singhvi further submitted that the High Court has grossly erred in referring to the writ petitions and the MoC filed in one of the writ petitions, while setting aside the award. He submitted that the writ petitions filed by SICAL were basically against TAMP and with regard to the fixation of tariff. However, the arbitration proceedings w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erpretation of contracts. He submitted that the said principles provide that a contract shall be interpreted according to the common intention of the parties. It is only when the intention cannot be established that the contract shall be interpreted according to the meaning that a reasonable person of the same kind as a party, would give it in the same circumstances. He submitted that from the perusal of Article 14 as well as the conduct of the parties, it is clear that the parties intended that if there was any change in law to the detriment of the Licensee, the Licensee was entitled to relief from the Licensor by amendment of the contract. He submitted that such intention is clarified from the fact that in such an event, the Licensee was not entitled to claim any compensation. The learned Senior Counsel in this respect relies on the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Sandvik Asia Private Limited v. Vardhman Promoters 2007 (94) DRJ 762 and Hansalaya Properties v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited 2008 (106) DRJ 820. 28. Dr. Singhvi further submitted that the agreement has to be read as a whole. In his submission, whereas Articles 10.8, 13.4.7 and 13.4.8 make the Licensor's d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consideration. Though as per MoC which was filed way back in 2005, SICAL was required to compensate TPT, it has not done so. She therefore submitted that on one hand, SICAL is taking advantage of orders of the Court and on the other hand not complying with the obligations set out in the MoC, on the basis of which the High Court has disposed of writ petition. 32. Smt. Divan submitted that even the third tariff order passed in case of SICAL had been quashed by the Madras High Court, challenge to which is pending before the Division Bench. She further submitted that on account of an order passed in Section 9 proceedings, TPT is getting a very meagre amount from SICAL. 33. Smt. Divan further submitted that by the award, the Tribunal has provided for entire substitution of the terms of the contract between the parties. She submitted that when the agreement between the parties was based on royalty method, the Tribunal, by a substitution, has provided for revenue sharing method. She submitted that this is not permissible at all in law. A party cannot be thrusted with a new contract against its wishes. Smt. Divan further submitted that SICAL having elected/availed the remedies of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted only to TAMP orders and had nothing to do with change of law. He submitted that none of the case laws cited by Smt. Divan considers a Clause analogous to Article 14 and therefore, the said cases would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the argument with regard to doctrine of election is also without substance. 36. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the documents placed on record. Though various judgments of this Court as well as some of the High Courts have been cited by counsel of both the parties, we do not find it necessary to refer to all of them. In our view, a reference to few recent judgments of this Court will be sufficient. 37. A bench of this Court, of which one of us (R.F. Nariman, J.) was a party, has considered various judgments of this Court in the case of Associate Builders (supra). 38. Another bench of this Court, again to which one of us (R.F. Nariman, J.) was a party, has considered various judgments of this Court including the judgment in Associate Builders (supra) and the effect of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 in the case of Ssangyong E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 705]; Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Friends Coal Carbonisation [Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Friends Coal Carbonisation (2006) 4 SCC 445]; and McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181]) 13. It is relevant to note that after the 2015 Amendment to Section 34, the above position stands somewhat modified. Pursuant to the insertion of Explanation 1 to Section 34(2), the scope of contravention of Indian public policy has been modified to the extent that it now means fraud or corruption in the making of the award, violation of Section 75 or Section 81 of the Act, contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, and conflict with the most basic notions of justice or morality. Additionally, Sub-section (2-A) has been inserted in Section 34, which provides that in case of domestic arbitrations, violation of Indian public policy also includes patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. The proviso to the same states that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence. 14. As far as interference with an order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference on the basis that the award is in conflict with justice or morality is now to be understood as a conflict with the "most basic notions of morality or justice". This again would be in line with paras 36 to 39 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204], as it is only such arbitral awards that shock the conscience of the court that can be set aside on this ground. 36. Thus, it is clear that public policy of India is now constricted to mean firstly, that a domestic award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, as understood in paras 18 and 27 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204], or secondly, that such award is against basic notions of justice or morality as understood in paras 36 to 39 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204]. Explanation 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and Explanation 2 to Section 48(2)(b)(ii) was added by the Amendment Act only so that Western Geco [ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12], as understood in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lders [Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204], while no longer being a ground for challenge under "public policy of India", would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality. Additionally, a finding based on documents taken behind the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse. 42. Given the fact that the amended Act will now apply, and that the "patent illegality" ground for setting aside arbitral awards in international commercial arbitrations will not apply, it is necessary to advert to the grounds contained in Sections 34(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) as applicable to the facts of the present case. 42. It will thus appear to be a more than settled legal position, that in an application Under Section 34, the court is not expected to act as an appellate c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rking test of perversity is contained in two judgments. In Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons [1992 Supp (2) SCC 312], it was held: (SCC p. 317, para 7) "7. ... It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law." In Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L & S) 429], it was held: (SCC p. 14, para 10) "10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. 45. Keeping these prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oyalty was to be paid in the same currency in which the Licensee realizes the charges from users; and (c) guaranteed minimum TEU throughput that will be handled in each year of the contract. 48. It will also be necessary to refer to Clause 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 of the bid document, which reads thus: 4.7.1 SETTING OF PRICES The prescribed rates and charges to be collected by the LICENSEE from users shall not exceed the maximum rates as approved by the Government/Tariff Regulatory Authority. The proposed rates for handling are given in Annexure II. The LICENSEE shall bill the users of the container terminal for services including terminal charges, wharfage on cargo containerised, container box and cargo related charges to be collected by the LICENSEE. These revenues shall be collected from cargo interests and the owners or agents of the vessels and shall accrue to and be payable to the LICENSEE. Charges on account of Berth Hire, Port Dues, Pilotage etc. shall be raised and recovered directly by TPT from the users. 4.7.2 REGULATION & REVIEW Normally the tariff will be revised by the Government/Tariff Regulatory Authority once in 3 yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Licensee shall be entitled to recover from the owners/consignees or vessel owners/agents rates and/or charges due and payable by them for use of the Container Terminal services including terminal charges, wharfage on cargo containerised, container box and cargo related charges in respect of cargo and other services provided by the Licensee provided however that the rates and/or charges to be collected by the Licensee shall not exceed the rates fixed by Licensor in respect of similar services and duly notified by the GoI in official gazette or to be fixed by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports constituted Under Article (sic Section) 47A of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, as applicable, from time to time. For the purpose of fixing or revising existing Tariff, the GoI has set up an independent Tariff Authority for Major Ports constituted Under Article (sic Section) 47A of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The Tariff to be fixed by such authority would be the maximum rate of tariff and the Licensee would be free to fix the tariff at a rate lower than that fixed by such authority. Regarding fixation of tariff and setting prices, the Licensee shall follow the Rules and Regulations st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l be adjusted upwards or downwards as a one time measure on fixation of tariff for containers by the TAMP for the first time. This adjustment will be carried out by the Port based on a single percentage (plus or minus) to be applied to all the figures quoted as royalty vide Appendix 12. This single percentage shall be decided on the basis of sum of weighted average of variations to the rates in respect of tariff or containers in the following manner... 52. Perusal of Article 7.3.1 would reveal, that the Licensee was entitled to recover from owners/consignees or vessel owners/agents, rates and/or charges due and payable by them for use of Container Terminal services including terminal charges, wharfage on cargo containerized, container box and cargo related charges in respect of cargo and other services provided by the Licensee. However, it was provided, that the rates and/or charges to be collected by the Licensee shall not exceed the rates fixed by Licensor in respect of similar services and duly notified by the GoI in official gazette or to be fixed by TAMP constituted Under Section 47A of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The Agreement itself clarifies, that the tariff to be f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll not be entitled to any compensation whatsoever from the Licensor as a result of Change in Law. 14.4 Changes in Tax Laws and Regulations The Licensee is not entitled to any compensation for any increase in direct and/or indirect tax which the Licensee is liable to pay in respect of the Project. 55. Article 14 deals with 'change in law'. Article 14.1, which defines 'law', states, that law means any valid act, ordinance, rule, Regulation, notification, directive, order policy, bylaw, administrative guideline, ruling or instruction having the force of law enacted or issued by a Government Authority. Article 14.2, which deals with 'change in law', states, that 'change in law' would mean any amendment, alteration, modification or repeal of any existing law by Government Authority or through any interpretation thereof by a court of law or enactment of any new law coming into effect after the date of this Agreement, provision for which has not been made elsewhere in the said Agreement. Article 14.3 provides for relief under change in law. If, after the date of Agreement, there is a change in the law which substantially and adver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever, it being subjected to a maximum amount of the bid of the second lowest bidder. According to the Arbitral Tribunal, there was a change in policy, which amounted to change in law, which, in turn, adversely affected SICAL. 60. Let us examine the correctness of this finding. We are fully aware, that neither Under Section 34 nor Under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the Court is entitled to reappreciate the evidence. The said limitation would be equally applicable to this Court also. Admittedly, the bid document was published on 9th April, 1997. The technical bid of SICAL was submitted on 24th October, 1997. The financial offer of SICAL was submitted on 19th December, 1997. LoI was issued on 29th January, 1998. All this has happened prior to the guidelines issued by TAMP in February 1998. As such, it is beyond any doubt, that when the bid document was notified and when SICAL submitted its bid and LoI was issued to it, there were no guidelines in vogue. For the first time, the guidelines were adopted by TAMP in the workshop held in Chennai on 26th/27th February, 1998. 61. Let us examine what do these guidelines provide. The TAMP must adhere to established costing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d either by increasing the surplus through a rationalized tariff structure and/or reducing the capital base by eliminating unproductive and obsolete assets. 63. It could thus clearly be seen, that even 1998 guidelines do not mention, that the royalty could be factored in the cost while determining the tariff. Though the said guidelines observed, that the port pricing may continue to be cost-based with an assured rate of return, it further observed, that such a concept of an assured rate of return is not in consonance with a competitive system. Thus, it is amply clear, that when the bids were invited, and SICAL submitted its bid and LoI was issued to it, there was no policy at all. Even the 1998 guidelines do not provide for factoring the royalty in cost while determining the tariff. 64. No doubt that when the first proposal for revision of tariff was submitted by SICAL, in its comments submitted to TAMP, TPT has supported the proposal submitted by SICAL. It is also undisputed, that TAMP vide order dated 08th December, 1999 (notified on 28th December, 1999) has approved the proposal with regard to fixation of tariff insofar as SICAL is concerned. It will be relevant to refer t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 2004 respectively. As has been mentioned earlier, the existing tariffs were allowed to the PSA SICAL by accepting its proposal to adopt the (then) existing CHPT rates. That being so, there was no detailed cost analysis carried out then. It is admitted that the issue of admissibility of 'royalty' as a cost item has come under a focused scrutiny only in the case relating to the CCTL which was disposed of in March, 2002. In that case, this Authority decided not to allow 'revenue share' as a cost element for computation of tariffs at the CCTL. This Authority held that allowing royalty in tariff would mean that the CCTL (Private Terminal Operator) and the CHPT (the Licensor) both of whom enjoyed a dominant position, could enter into any commercial arrangement between themselves and pass on the consequential cost to customers. This Authority also observed that there had been no commitment from anywhere about consequential tariff adjustments and the CA also did not give any assurance to the Licensee about tariff adjustments corresponding to the royalty quoted. In view of the principle set out in the CCTL case, it is necessary to accord a similar treatm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29th July, 2003 issued by the GoI, which is in the following terms: In a few cases recently a question arose as to what treatment to be given to revenue sharing/royalty payment made by private terminal operators to the concerned major ports for the purpose of fixation/revision of tariff. TAMP has also requested for guidelines from Ministry in the matter. The matter has been discussed with Chairman, TAMP and considered in this Ministry and it has been decided to clarify as a matter of policy that the revenue sharing/royalty payment shall not be factored into/taken into account as cost for fixation/revision of tariff by TAMP for the following reasons: (i) The benefit of higher efficiency on account of private participation in ports should also be passed on to shippers or the users which will not be so if royalty is allowed to be factored in the cost of private operators. (ii) If royalty is allowed as cost, the private bidder can offer any high percentage which he will recover from the shippers/users in the shape or royalty cost lectured in fixing of higher rates. It has also been decoded that the position in this regard may be clearly indicated in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....void likely loss to the operator on account of royalty/revenue share not being taken into account, subject to maximum of the amount quoted by the next lowest bidder. This would, however, be allowed for the period upto which such likely loss will arise. This would not be applicable if there is provision in the concession agreement on treatment of 'Royalty/Revenue Share'. [emphasis supplied] 75. The said guidelines specifically provide that 'royalty/revenue share' payable to the landlord port by the private operator will not be allowed as an admissible cost for tariff computation as decided by the Government in the Ministry of Shipping vide its Order No. PR-14019/6/2002-PG dated 29th July, 2003. It further provided, that in those BOT cases where bidding process was finalized before 29th July, 2003, tariff computation will take into account royalty/revenue sharing as cost for tariff fixation in such a manner as to avoid likely loss to the operator on account of the royalty/revenue share not being taken into account. However, this was subjected only to a maximum of the amount quoted by the next lowest bidder. This was further subjected to be allowed for the period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pass-through in cost while fixation of tariff, is based on 'no evidence' and the finding, that there was a change in law in 2003 and 2005 is based on without taking into consideration the relevant evidence, would come in the realm of perversity as explained by this Court in paragraph 31 of the Associate Builders (supra). The findings are based on 'no evidence' and 'ignorance of vital evidence' in arriving at its decision. 79. This brings us to the next issue viz., as to whether the Arbitral Tribunal was justified in passing an award thereby substituting 'royalty payment module' to the 'revenue-sharing module'. A contract duly entered into between the parties cannot be substituted unilaterally without the consent of the parties. The intention of the parties could be gathered from the documents on record. SICAL, for the first time, made representation to TPT on 6th October, 2006 thereby seeking a relief under the terms of Article 14.3 of the Agreement. On 14th October, 2006, TPT informed SICAL that the issues raised by it were under examination. However, vide order dated 27th October, 2006, TPT refused to consider SICAL's application for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Madras in all challenges made against the order of TAMP. Neither a Court nor the Tribunal can rewrite the Contract. The contract is an enforceable one and simply because SICAL is stated to be losing monetarily, the relief sought for in this dispute cannot be granted. If the case of SICAL is true, it is open to them to put an end to the contract and seek appropriate relief. If such a termination of the contract takes place at the instance of SICAL, then the PORT will take steps to get appropriate relief. Section 56 of the Contract Act is applicable to this case" A number of case laws have been cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the PORT and we will refer to them at the appropriate stage. 80. It could thus be seen, that SICAL wanted the Agreement to be amended so as to change the 'royalty payment method' to 'revenue-sharing method'. TPT was always opposed to it. The intention of TPT is apparent from its various communications and its stand before the Arbitral Tribunal, that it was not agreeable for amendment of the Agreement from 'royalty payment method' to 'revenue-sharing method'. 81. However, ignoring the stand of TPT, by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he conscience of this Court. However, we repeat that this ground is available only in very exceptional circumstances, such as the fact situation in the present case. Under no circumstance can any court interfere with an arbitral award on the ground that justice has not been done in the opinion of the Court. That would be an entry into the merits of the dispute which, as we have seen, is contrary to the ethos of Section 34 of the 1996 Act, as has been noted earlier in this judgment." [emphasis supplied] 83. As such, as held by this Court in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Limited (supra), the fundamental principle of justice has been breached, namely, that a unilateral addition or alteration of a contract has been foisted upon an unwilling party. This Court has further held that a party to the Agreement cannot be made liable to perform something for which it has not entered into a contract. In our view, re-writing a contract for the parties would be breach of fundamental principles of justice entitling a Court to interfere since such case would be one which shocks the conscience of the Court and as such, would fall in the exceptional category. 84. We may gainfull....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CAL that it is incurring huge losses. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of TPT, that it is incurring huge losses on account of various interim orders passed by the High Court and the District Judge in Section 9 applications. 90. We do not propose to go into those aspects of the matter. TAMP has issued various notifications with regard to fixation of tariff so also various orders have been passed by the GoI with regard to the aspect of grant or refusal of pass through of royalty payable. Various petitions have been filed by SICAL challenging the said orders and notifications. All the petitions were allowed thereby remanding the matters to TAMP and GoI. However, it is not in dispute, that SICAL, by virtue of the interim order passed dated 8th November, 2002 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 60240 of 2002 in Writ Petition No. 40638 of 2002 is continuing to levy charges on the basis of 1999 tariff order (dated 8th December, 1999) passed by TAMP. 91. The last notification issued by TAMP with regard to price/tariff fixation dated 17th December, 2008, gazetted vide notification dated 30th December, 2008 was challenged by SICAL by way of Writ Petition No. 1350 of 2009. The last direc....