Alternative Dispute Resolution
Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.
Supreme Court judgment dated 2 June 2020
- Citation
- Supreme Court judgment dated 2 June 2020
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date
- 2 June 2020
- Bench
- R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ.
Facts
- Centrotrade entered into a copper-sale agreement with Hindustan Copper.
- The agreement created a two-tier arbitration structure:
- first, arbitration before the Indian Council of Arbitration in India;
- second, an appellate arbitration before the ICC in London if either party was dissatisfied.
- The first tribunal rejected Centrotrade’s monetary claims.
- Centrotrade invoked the second tier.
- The London tribunal reversed the result and made an award in Centrotrade’s favour.
- Hindustan Copper resisted enforcement in India.
- It argued that:
- it had not received adequate time and opportunity to present its case;
- the appellate tribunal proceeded despite its requests;
- and enforcement should be refused under Section 48.
- In an earlier stage, the Supreme Court had already held that the two-tier arbitration agreement was legally valid.
- The 2020 judgment concerned enforcement of the London award.
Issue
- Whether Hindustan Copper was unable to present its case within Section 48(1)(b).
- Whether the enforcement court could reassess the tribunal’s procedural decisions.
- Whether a foreign award may be remitted to the foreign tribunal by an Indian enforcement court.
Rule
- Section 48 creates narrow and exhaustive defences to foreign-award enforcement.
- “Unable to present the case” requires a real denial of:
- notice;
- opportunity;
- equality;
- or natural justice.
- It does not protect a party from the consequences of:
- delay;
- tactical non-participation;
- failure to follow procedural timetables;
- or unsuccessful requests for repeated extensions.
- The enforcement court cannot:
- review the merits;
- reconsider procedural discretion;
- or remit the foreign award as though exercising Section 34 jurisdiction.
Application
- The London tribunal issued procedural directions and gave Hindustan Copper repeated opportunities to:
- appoint counsel;
- submit its defence;
- file documents;
- and respond to Centrotrade’s claims.
- Hindustan Copper sought extensions and did not comply fully with the tribunal’s timetable.
- The Supreme Court held that inability must be genuine, not self-created.
- A party cannot refuse or delay participation and later convert that conduct into a natural-justice defence.
- The tribunal had acted within its procedural authority.
- It had not:
- secretly decided the case;
- denied notice;
- refused every reasonable opportunity;
- or relied upon undisclosed material.
- The Court distinguished between:
- a party being legally or practically prevented from presenting its case; and
- a party failing to use a fair opportunity already provided.
- Only the first falls within Section 48.
- Hindustan Copper’s objections also invited the Indian court to reconsider whether the tribunal should have granted more time.
- That would amount to merits and procedural review, which Part II prohibits.
- The Court further held that an Indian enforcement court cannot remit a foreign award to the tribunal.
- Section 48 allows adjournment in limited circumstances where set-aside proceedings are pending at the seat, but it does not create a general remand power.
- Since no statutory defence was established, the London award had to be enforced.
- The case reinforces India’s pro-enforcement obligation under the New York Convention.
Conclusion
- The Supreme Court held the London appellate award enforceable.
- Hindustan Copper had received adequate opportunities and was not genuinely unable to present its case.
- The enforcement court could neither review nor remit the foreign award.
- Use this case for: the narrow natural-justice defence under Section 48 and enforcement of two-tier arbitral awards.