Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 8 OF 2014 AND 9 OF 2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5765 OF 2014
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. &

ANR.

... Appellants

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA

... Respondent

O R D E R
In Civil Appeal No. 5765 of 2014 which was filed by
the

appellants-Reliance

Industries

Limited

and

Another

challenging the order of the High Court of Delhi, the issue


involved was as to which is the seat of arbitration, viz.,
whether

it

is

India

or

London.

By

the

judgment

dated

28.05.2014, the said issue was decided in favour of the


aforesaid appellants allowing the appeal and holding that
the seat of arbitration is London.

In arriving at this

conclusion, this Court primarily went by the consideration


that insofar as the arbitration proceedings are concerned,
it is the law of England which is applicable.
India

(Respondent

in

the

appeal)

filed

review

Union of
petition

seeking review of the said judgment which was dismissed by


Signature Not Verified

this Court.

Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2015.09.22
17:35:14 IST
Reason:

After the dismissal of the review petition, the

applicant herein viz., Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

I.A. Nos. 8 & 9 in C.A. No. 5765/2014 etc.

(for

short

therein

'ONGC')

that

some

has

filed

error

has

these
crept

applications
in,

in

the

stating

aforesaid

judgment dated 28.05.2014 and as a Court of Record, this


Court should correct the error.

We may mention that after

the filing of these applications, the Union of India had


filed curative petition and the same was also dismissed by
this Court.

After the dismissal of the review petition and the


curative

petition,

the

aforesaid

applications,

at

the

instance of ONGC, which was not even party to the impugned


proceedings,

are

not

maintainable

and

are,

therefore,

dismissed.

At the same time, this Court being a Court of Record,


takes note of the fact that in the judgment, it has been
stated at a few places that the Production Sharing Contract
was also amended with the consent of the parties.

It is

stated that, this is not factually correct as ONGC was also


a party to the contract but never gave its consent.

We may

record that even if this is not factually correct, it does


not alter the result of the appeal, which remains the same.
Since the applicant was not a party to these proceedings, in
any case, it would be always open to the applicant in any
other Court of Law or even before the Arbitral Tribunal, to
point out the same.

I.A. Nos. 8 & 9 in C.A. No. 5765/2014 etc.

With

these

observations,

the

instant

Interlocutory

Application Nos. 8 of 2014 and 9 of 2014 are dismissed.

.........................., J.
[ A.K. SIKRI ]

.........................., J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
September 15, 2015.

I.A. Nos. 8 & 9 in C.A. No. 5765/2014 etc.

ITEM NO.1

COURT NO.14
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SECTION XIV
I N D I A

I.A. NOS. 8 & 9 in


Civil Appeal No. 5765/2014
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. &

ANR.

Appellant(s)
VERSUS

U.O.I

Respondent(s)

(For impleadment, directions and office report)


WITH
SLP(C) No. 11396/2015
(With Office Report)
Date : 15/09/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Parties
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.
Ms. Sonali Basu Parekh, Adv.
Mr. Lalit Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv.
Mr. Abhinay, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv.
Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv.
Mr. Udayaditya, Adv.
M/s. Parekh & Co.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
M/s

Ranjeet Kumar, SG.


Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv.
Abhijeet Sinha, Adv.
Sangeeta Mandal, Adv.
Swati Sinha, Adv.
Debesh Panda, Adv.
Vijay Kumar, Adv.
Shantanu Bansal, Adv.
Fox Mandal & Co.

Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG.


Mr. Sunil K. Jain, Adv.
Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Adv.
I.A. Nos. 8 & 9 in C.A. No. 5765/2014 etc.

Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, Adv.


Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Interlocutory Application Nos. 8/2014 and 9/2014 in
Civil Appeal No. 5765/2014
Interlocutory Application Nos. 8 of 2014 and 9 of
2014 are dismissed in terms of the signed order.

SLP(C) No. 11396/2015


Heard.
Arguments concluded.
Judgment reserved.

(Nidhi Ahuja)
COURT MASTER

(Renu Diwan)
COURT MASTER

[Signed order is placed on the file.]

I.A. Nos. 8 & 9 in C.A. No. 5765/2014 etc.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen