YOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.versusSSANG YONG ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

                    [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 324


A                YOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
                                    V.
    SSANG YONG ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO.
                           LTD.
                     I.A. No.3 of 2011
B                            IN
              Civil Appeal No.7562 of 2011
                        DECEMBER 15, 2011

         [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
c
         International Arbitration Act, 2002:
         International application - Clarificationlcorretion of
    clerical errors in the judgment - In para ~5 of the judgment
    rendered in Civil Appeal No. 7562 of 2011 on 1st September
D   2011, it was indicated that the SIAC Rules would be the Curial
    law of the arbitration proceedings - Held: It is clarified that the
    Curial law is the International Arbitration law of Singapore and
    not the SIAC Rules.

E        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         I.A. No. 3 of 2011
                                         IN
        Civil Appeal No. 7562 of 2011.
F        From the Judgment & Order dated 31.8.2010 of the High
    Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Civil
    Reivision No. 34 of 2010.
        Sidharth Khattar. Faisal Zafar, Tarun Shanker, Gagan
G   Gupta for the Appellant.
       Dharmendra Rautray. Ankit Khushu, Tara Shahani,
    Meenakshi for the Respondent.
        The Order of the Court was delivered by
H                              324
     YOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. v. SSANG YONG                   325
         ENGINEERING AND CONST CO. LTD.

                           ORDER                                       A

    ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Interlocutory Application No.3 of
2011 has been filed by SSANGYONG Engineering &
Construction Company Limited in disposed of, Civil Appeal
No. 7562 of 201,1, seeking clarification and correction of certain     B
clerical errors in the judgment passed by this Court on 1st
September, 2011, under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1966.

     2. Mr. Dharmendra Rautray, learned Advocate-on-Record,
who had earlier appeared for SSANGYONG Engineering &                   C
Construction Company Limited, submitted that in paragraph 5
of the aforesaic,I judgment it had been mentioned that his clients
had filed an application before the Sole Arbitrator on 5th June,
2010, for interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Mr. Rautray pointed out that the said          D
application had been made not under Section 17 of the above
Act, but under Rule 24 of the SIAC Rules and the same would
be evident from the application made before the sole Arbitrator
in SIAC Arbitration No.37 of 2010, by the Respondent, being
Annexure-8 to the present application.                                 E

      3. Mr. Rautray then submitted that through inadvertence,
in paragraph 35 of the judgment, it has been indicated that
there was no ambiguity that the SIAC Rules would be the Curial
law of the arbitration proceedings and that the same had been
                                                                       F
subsequently clarified in paragraph 37, wherein while indicating
that the arbitration proceedings would be governed by the SIAC
Rules as the Curial law, which included Rule 32, which made it
clear that where the seat of arbitration is Singapore, the law of
the arbitration under the SIAC Rules would be the International
Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A, 2002 Ed, Statutes of the Republic          G
of Singapore). Mr. Rautray submitted that it was a clear case
of inadvertence in paragraph 35 that needs to be clarified by
indicating ttiat the Curial law is the International Arbitration law
of Singapore and not the SIAC rules.
                                                                       H
    326    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      4. It was also pointed out that in paragraph 36 of the
  judgment in the sentence beginning with the words "In Bhatia
  International (supra) .. .", it had been indicated that while
  considering the applicability of Part I of the 1996 Act to arbitral
  proceedings where the seat of arbitration was in India, this
B Court was of the view that Part I of the Act did not automatically
  exclude all foreign arbitral proceedings or awards. Mr. Rautray
  submitted that as would be evident from reading the judgment
  as a whole, this Court had intended to indicate that where. the
  seat of arbitration was "outside:· and not "in" India, the said
c portion of the sentence should read "where the seat of
  arbitration was outside India".

        5. It was lastly submitted by Mr. Rautray that in paragraph
  4 of the judgment it had been mentioned that an application had
  been filed by the Appellant under Section 9 of the 1996 Act
D before the District and Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, Madhya
  Pradesh, whereas such an application had been made by the
  Respondent.

       6. Mr. Rautray submitted that the aforesaid clarification and
E corrections are required to be made in the final judgment.

          7. However, on behalf of Yograj Infrastructure Limited it was
    urged that except for the clarification sought for with regard to
    the Rules applicable to the arbitral proceedings, the other
F   clarifications could be made.

       8. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the
  respective parties, we are inclined to agree with Mr. Rautray
  that the corrections and clarifications sought for have to be
  allowed. In particular, the observations made in paragraphs 35
G and 37, if read together, indicate that. although, when the seat
  of arbitration was in Singapore. the SIAC Rules would apply,
  the same included Rule 32 which provides that it is the
  International Arbitration Act, 2002, which would be the law of
  the arbitration. Accordingly, it is clarified that while mention had
H been made in paragraph 35 that the Curial law of the arbitration
   YOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. v. SSANG YONG         327
 ENGINEERING AND CONST CO. LTD. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
would be the SIAC Rules, what has been subsequently indicated       A
in paragraph 37 of the judgment is that International Arbitration
Act of Singapore would be the law of the arbitrat.ion.

      9. The judgment and order dated 1st September, 2011,
be read and understood on the basis of the corrections and
                                                                    8
clarifications hereby made in tlli.s order.

      10. The interlocutory application filed on behalf of
SSANGYONG Engineerin.g & Construction Company Limited,
is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
                                                                    c
D.G.·                    Interlocutory Application disposed of.