Yograj Infras.Ltd vs Ssang Yong Engineering & ...

The total contract amount was 2,19,01,16,805/-.

On 13th August, 2006, SSY entered into a Sub-

e. grant any other appropriate interim measures of protection in favour of the Cross-Claimant/applicant, which in the esteemed opinion of this Hon'ble Tribunal are just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case;"

The above interim orders are made with the objective of enabling the construction work on the project to continue while the disputes between the parties are resolved in these arbitration proceedings (ref.

The parties have liberty at short notice, if any of the above directions require clarification or amendment in order to ensure proper implementation.

The same was dismissed by the High Court on 31st August, 2010, against which the Special Leave Petition (now appeal) has been filed.

20. Thereafter, the parties entered into settlement talks, as provided for in Clause 26 of the Agreement and signed the minutes of the meeting dated 28th September, 2009. The settlement talks 22 between the parties having failed, the respondent/claimant, invoked Clause 27 of the Agreement for reference of the disputes to arbitration in accordance with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules (SIAC Rules). The respondent/claimant filed a Statement of Claim on 16th August, 2010, before the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Graham Easton, claiming a sum of 221,36,91,097/- crores from the appellant. Both the parties filed applications before the learned Arbitrator seeking interim relief under Rule 24 of the SIAC Rules on 5th June, 2010. In their application for interim relief under Rule 24 of the SIAC Rules, the respondent, inter alia, prayed for release of all plants, machineries and equipment belonging to the respondent; injunction against the appellant from removing all plants, machineries, equipment, materials, aggregates, etc., owned by the respondent from the work site and/or camp site;

21. The Sole Arbitrator appointed by the SIAC by its order dated 29th June, 2010, directed the appellant to, inter alia, release for use by the respondent all plants and equipment. The appellant was also restrained from creating any third party interest, or otherwise to deal with the properties at the work site and/or camp site and permit the respondent to use the aggregates of a total quantity of 27,580 cubic metres for carrying out the works. The Sole Arbitrator, while dealing with the applications filed by both the parties under 24 Rule 24 of the SIAC Rules, also recorded that the interim orders were being made with the object of allowing the construction work on the project to continue while the dispute between the parties were resolved in these arbitration proceedings and in order to ensure that the progress of the project was not hampered, while the parties waited for the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

22. Mr. Routray submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant before the District Court, Narasinghpur, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the abovementioned order of the learned Arbitrator dated 29th June, 2010, was dismissed on 23rd July, 2010, on the ground of maintainability and lack of jurisdiction. The Civil Revision filed against the said order was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court by its order dated 31st August, 2010. While dismissing the Revision, the High Court, inter 25 alia, observed that under Clause 27.1 of the Agreement, the parties had agreed to resolve their dispute under the provisions of SIAC Rules which expressly or, in any case, impliedly also adopted Rule 32 of the said Rules which categorically indicates that the law of arbitration under the said Rules would be the International Arbitration Act, 2002, of Singapore. The Special Leave Petition, out of which the present appeal arises, has been filed by the appellant against the said order dated 31st August, 2010.

33. As will be seen from Clause 27.1, the arbitration proceedings are to be conducted in Singapore in accordance with the SIAC Rules as in force at the time of signing of the agreement.

There is, therefore, no ambiguity that the 35 procedural law with regard to the arbitration proceedings, is the SIAC Rules.

34. Clause 27.2 makes it clear that the seat of arbitration would be Singapore.

"Where the seat of arbitration is Singapore, the law of the arbitration under these Rules shall be the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A, 2002 Ed, Statutes of the Republic of Singapore) or its modification or re-

enactment thereof."

40. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed and all interim orders are vacated.

41. There will be no order as to costs.