In Ultra Deep Subsea vs.
Offshore Contract and Arbitration Clause
Pay now Argue Later Clause
Pursuant to Clause 12(e) of the BIMCO Supplytime 2017 C/P, HOEC agreed that invoices issued by UDS would either be paid or promptly disputed with reasons, within 7 days of their receipt.
Admissions of Liability
UDS routinely invoiced HOEC, but no objections/dispute were conveyed to UDS. Instead, HOEC repeatedly sought time to pay the invoiced amounts beyond the 7-day period stipulated in Clause 12 (e) of the C/P, claiming difficulties ranging from Covid relating restrictions to awaiting a withholding tax order from the tax authorities for remittance of foreign exchange.
UDS extended the duration of the C/P on multiple occasions relying on HOEC's promises to pay the invoices, albeit with a delay.
However, once UDS completed the drilling work under the C/P, HOEC refused payment and in a volte face, alleged that UDS' services were deficient, the vessel sub-standard and that there were discrepancies in the invoices.
On HOEC's payment default, UDS applied to the
Power of Court to order Interim Measures in Support of Foreign Seated Arbitration
The Court rejected HOEC's preliminary objection that it did not have jurisdiction to order interim measures, when the arbitration was seated abroad and the substantive law of the contract was foreign. The proviso to section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ("Arbitration Act") which statutorily authorised an Indian court to order interim measures in support of a foreign seated arbitration, (in the absence of an agreement to the contrary) was construed as being permissive and that any exclusion of its jurisdiction in aid of the foreign seated arbitration had to be specific and express.
The Court accordingly held that merely providing in the C/P for English law and LMAA arbitration seated in
Test for Granting Interim Measures
HOEC's contention that no security in the form of an order for deposit of money could be granted, as it was not UDS's case that it was dissipating assets with a view to defeating any award that could be passed against it, was rejected by the Court.
Admission of Liability
The Court reasoned that it was justified in ordering HOEC to deposit money in court as security for the claim against it in the foreign seated arbitration due to its repeated admissions of liability coupled with the terms of Clause 12 (e) of the C/
Significantly, the court clarified that its power to grant security under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was broad and not strictly bound by the provisions of Order XXXVIII of CPC, which govern cases relating to attachment of assets to which the test of dissipation was applicable.
Holding Parties to their Contractual Bargain
The Court regarded Clause 12(e) of the C/P as a 'pay now argue later' clause, which barred HOEC from withholding the invoiced amounts, unless it raised any objection/dispute within 7 days of their receipt. Relying on the English Commercial Court decision in The Atlantic Tonjer (2020 I Lloyd's Law Rep 171), it observed that this clause was included in the BIMCO Supplytime 2017 form, to ensure that cash flow (which is of crucial importance to shipowners) was not disrupted. Endorsing and applying the view of the English Commercial Court, it construed Clause 12 (e) of the C/P as requiring HOEC to deposit the invoiced amounts in Court due to its failure to raise any dispute within the contractually stipulated period. HOEC was free to dispute the invoices before the arbitral tribunal, but could not illegally withhold amounts contractually due to UDS.
Significance of this Ruling
This is a positive development in the evolution of arbitration law as, it demonstrates the flexibility of the Indian Courts in granting effective and meaningful orders in aid of foreign arbitration. The ruling assists claimants in obtaining security in
The judgement fosters user confidence and respect of the Indian judicial system for molding relief that is just and in sync with commercial reality.
Footnote
1. Judgement and order of
The above is a generic analysis and should not be regarded as a substitute for specific advice based on the facts of a client's objectives and specific commercial agreements reached. Please do reach out to us at mail@zba.co.in for any queries.
ZBA
412 Raheja Chambers
400021
Fax: 226743 5013
E-mail: niloufer.lam@zba.co.in
URL: www.zba.co.in
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source