Case: Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc

not strain too much to interpret an agreement between two parties as in the case of a statutory interpretation. The approach in analysing the terms of agreement should be straight and plain but at the same time cohesive and logical. 10. In the matter of interpretation, the court has to make different approaches depending upon the instrument falling for interpretation. Legislative drafting is made by experts and is subjected to scrutiny at different stages before it takes final shape of an Act, Rule or Regulation. There is another category of drafting by lawmen or document writers who are professionally qualified and experienced in the field like drafting deeds, treaties, settlements in court, etc. And then there is the third category of documents made by laymen who have no knowledge of law or expertise in the field. The legal quality or perfection of the document is comparatively low in the third category, high in second and higher in first. No doubt, in the process of interpretation in the first category, the courts do make an attempt to gather the purpose of the legislation, its context and text. In the second category also, the text as well as the purpose is certainly important, and in the third category of documents like wills, it is simply intention alone of the executor that is relevant. In the case before us, being a contract executed between the two parties, the court cannot adopt an approach for interpreting a statute. The terms of the contract will have to be understood in the way the parties wanted and intended them to be. In that context, particularly in agreements of arbitration, where party autonomy is the grundnorm, how the parties worked out the agreement, is one of the indicators to decipher the intention, apart from the plain or grammatical meaning of the expressions and the use of the expressions at the proper places in the agreement. Contextually, it may be noted that in the present case, the respondent had invoked the provisions of English law for the purpose of the initiation of the unsettled disputes. It has hence, while interpreting an agreement, to be kept in mind that the parties, intended to avoid impracticable and inconvenient processes and procedures in working out the agreement. Potter J. made a similar observation in Cargill International S.A. v. Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation (1998] 1 W.L.R. 461 CA): “As Lord Goff observed in another context in Palm Shipping v. Kuwait Petroleum [1988] 1 Lloyds Rep 500 at 502: “It is not a permissible method of construction to propound a general or generally accepted principal ... (and) ... then to seek to force the provisions of the ... (the contract) ... into the straightjacket of that principle.” On the other hand, modern principles of construction require the court to have regard to the commercial background, the context of the contract and the circumstances of the parties and to consider whether, against that background and in that context, to give the words a particular or restricted meaning would lead to an apparently unreasonable and unfair result.” 11. A close perusal of the terms between the parties would clearly show that the first part of Article 22 is on the law governing the contract and in the second part the parties intended to lay down the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, viz., the proper law of the agreement of arbitration. It is unnecessary that after already agreeing on the procedural law governing the arbitration in Article 17.1, the parties intended to state the same again in a separate clause within the same contract in Article 22. Therefore, the intention of the parties to apply English Law to the arbitration agreement also and not limit it to the conduct of the arbitration is fairly clear from Article 22.12. Sumitomo (supra) is of no avail to the appellant. In Sumitomo (supra), there was no specific choice on the law of arbitration agreement and this court held that in absence of such choice, the law of arbitration agreement would be determined by the substantive law of the contract. That is not the case in this agreement.13. It is clear that the law applicable to arbitration agreement in the present case is English Law. Once it is found that the law governing the arbitration agreement is English Law, Part I of the Indian Arbitration Act stands impliedly excluded. This has been a long settled position and the latest judgment in Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited and others (2015 (10) SCALE 149 )reaffirms the same. In the words of R.F. Nariman J., “20. The last paragraph of Bharat Aluminiums judgment has now to be read with two caveats, both emanating from paragraph 32 of Bhatia International itself-that where the Court comes to a determination that the juridical seat is outside India or where law other than Indian law governs the arbitration agreement, Part-I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be excluded by necessary implication. Therefore, even in the cases governed by the Bhatia principle, it is only those cases in which agreements stipulate that the seat of the arbitration is in India or on whose facts a judgment cannot be reached on the seat of the arbitration as being outside India that would continue to be governed by the Bhatia principle. Also, it is only those agreements which stipulate or can be read to stipulate that the law governing the arbitration agreement is Indian law which would continue to be governed by the Bhatia rule.” 14. We are hence unable to be persuaded by the persuasive argument advanced by Shri Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the arbitration agreement is to be governed by the Indian Law.15. Accordingly, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the applications filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Indian Act are not maintainable against the two foreign awards dated 10.11.2002 and 12.11.2002 between the appellant and the respondent.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. In the matter of interpretation, the court has to make different approaches depending upon the instrument falling for interpretation. Legislative drafting is made by experts and is subjected to scrutiny at different stages before it takes final shape of an Act, Rule or Regulation. There is another category of drafting by lawmen or document writers who are professionally qualified and experienced in the field like drafting deeds, treaties, settlements in court, etc. And then there is the third category of documents made by laymen who have no knowledge of law or expertise in the field. The legal quality or perfection of the document is comparatively low in the third category, high in second and higher in first. No doubt, in the process of interpretation in the first category, the courts do make an attempt to gather the purpose of the legislation, its context and text. In the second category also, the text as well as the purpose is certainly important, and in the third category of documents like wills, it is simply intention alone of the executor that is relevant. In the case before us, being a contract executed between the two parties, the court cannot adopt an approach for interpreting a statute. The terms of the contract will have to be understood in the way the parties wanted and intended them to be. In that context, particularly in agreements of arbitration, where party autonomy is the grundnorm, how the parties worked out the agreement, is one of the indicators to decipher the intention, apart from the plain or grammatical meaning of the expressions and the use of the expressions at the proper places in the agreement. Contextually, it may be noted that in the present case, the respondent had invoked the provisions of English law for the purpose of the initiation of the unsettled disputes. It has hence, while interpreting an agreement, to be kept in mind that the parties, intended to avoid impracticable and inconvenient processes and procedures in working out the agreement. Potter J. made a similar observation in CargillInternational S.A. v. Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation (1998] 1 W.L.R. 461Lord Goff observed in another context in Palm Shipping v. Kuwait Petroleum [1988] 1 Lloyds Rep 500 at 502:is not a permissible method of construction to propound a general or generally accepted principal ... (and) ... then to seek to force the provisions of the ... (the contract) ... into the straightjacket of thatOn the other hand, modern principles of construction require the court to have regard to the commercial background, the context of the contract and the circumstances of the parties and to consider whether, against that background and in that context, to give the words a particular or restricted meaning would lead to an apparently unreasonable and unfair result.A close perusal of the terms between the parties would clearly show that the first part of Article 22 is on the law governing the contract and in the second part the parties intended to lay down the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, viz., the proper law of the agreement of arbitration. It is unnecessary that after already agreeing on the procedural law governing the arbitration in Article 17.1, the parties intended to state the same again in a separate clause within the same contract in Article 22. Therefore, the intention of the parties to apply English Law to the arbitration agreement also and not limit it to the conduct of the arbitration is fairly clear from Article 22.12. Sumitomo (supra) is of no avail to the appellant. In Sumitomo (supra), there was no specific choice on the law of arbitration agreement and this court held that in absence of such choice, the law of arbitration agreement would be determined by the substantive law of the contract. That is not the case in this agreement.13. It is clear that the law applicable to arbitration agreement in the present case is English Law. Once it is found that the law governing the arbitration agreement is English Law, Part I of the Indian Arbitration Act stands impliedly excluded. This has been a long settled position and the latest judgment in Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited and others (2015 (10) SCALE 149 )reaffirms the same. In the words of R.F. Nariman J.The last paragraph of Bharat Aluminiums judgment has now to be read with two caveats, both emanating from paragraph 32 of Bhatia International itself-that where the Court comes to a determination that the juridical seat is outside India or where law other than Indian law governs the arbitration agreement, Part-I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be excluded by necessary implication. Therefore, even in the cases governed by the Bhatia principle, it is only those cases in which agreements stipulate that the seat of the arbitration is in India or on whose facts a judgment cannot be reached on the seat of the arbitration as being outside India that would continue to be governed by the Bhatia principle. Also, it is only those agreements which stipulate or can be read to stipulate that the law governing the arbitration agreement is Indian law which would continue to be governed by the Bhatia rule.We are hence unable to be persuaded by the persuasive argument advanced by Shri Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the arbitration agreement is to be governed by the Indian Law.15. Accordingly, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the applications filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Indian Act are not maintainable against the two foreign awards dated 10.11.2002 and 12.11.2002 between the appellant and the respondent.