Supreme Court of India M/S. Centrotrade Minerals And Metals ... vs Hindustan Copper Ltd. on 2 June, 2020 Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3163, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 569 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2562 OF 2006 M/S. CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC. …APPELLANT VERSUS HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2564 OF 2006 JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J. 1. This matter comes to this Bench after two previous forays to this Court. 2. The appellant before us, in Civil Appeal No.2562 of 2006, is a U.S. Corporation who had entered into a contract for sale of 15,500 DMT of copper concentrate to be delivered at the Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat, the said goods to be used at the Khetri Plant of the respondent Hindustan Copper Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “HCL”/ “the respondent”), who is the appellant in the other Civil Appeal No.2564 of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 2006. After all consignments were delivered, payments had been made SUSHMA KUMARI BAJAJ Date: 2020.06.02 16:51:14 IST Reason: in accordance with the contract. However, a dispute arose between the 1 parties as regards the quantity of dry weight of copper concentrate delivered. Clause 14 of the agreement contained a twotier arbitration agreement by which the first tier was to be settled by arbitration in India. If either party disagrees with the result, that party will have the right to appeal to a second arbitration to be held by the ICC in London. The appellant M/s Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Centrotrade”/ “the appellant”) invoked the arbitration clause. By an award dated 15.06.1999 the arbitrator appointed by the Indian Council of Arbitration made a Nil Award. Thereupon, Centrotrade invoked the second part of the arbitration agreement, as a result of which Jeremy Cook QC, appointed by the ICC, delivered an award in London, dated 29.09.2001, in which the following amounts were awarded: “27. For the above reasons I THEREFORE AWARD and ADJUDGE that (1) HCL do pay Centrotrade the sum of $152,112.33, inclusive of interest to the date of the Award in respect of the purchase price for the first shipment. (2) HCL do pay Centrotrade the sum of $15,815.59, inclusive of interest to the date of this Award in respect of demurrage due on the first shipment. (3) HCL, do pay Centrotrade the sum of $284,653.53, inclusive of interest to the date of this Award in respect of the purchase price on the second shipment. (4) HCL do pay Centrotrade their legal costs in this arbitration in the sum of $82,733 and in addition the 2 costs of the International Court of Arbitration, the Arbitrator's fees and expenses totalling $29,000. (5) HCL do pay Centrotrade compound interest on the above sums from the date of this Award at 6% p.a. with quarterly rests until the date of actual payment.” 3. Even before Jeremy Cook QC could deliver his award, HCL, during the pendency of the proceedings before the arbitrator in London, filed a suit in the Court at Khetri, in the State of Rajasthan, challenging the arbitration clause. By an Order dated 27.04.2000, in a revision petition filed against the Order of the Khetri Court, the High Court at Rajasthan restrained the appellant from taking further steps in the London arbitration, pending hearing and disposal of the revision petition. This ad interim ex parte stay granted by the High Court was ultimately vacated by the Supreme Court only on 08.02.2001. Meanwhile, we are reliably informed that Mr. Cook, the learned arbitrator, referred the matter of stay of the parties from proceeding with the London arbitration to the ICC Court, which then decided that the arbitrator could continue with the arbitral proceedings. 4. When