Cheat Sheet for Oral Pleadings – Respondent (WorldCoal)
(Updated with Case Laws Arranged Alphabetically)
Case Laws
1. BG Group v. Republic of Argentina (US Supreme Court, 2014)
o Facts: Arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty required local litigation before
international arbitration. Argentina challenged jurisdiction.
o Held: Procedural preconditions (e.g., negotiation) go to admissibility, not jurisdiction.
Tribunals decide, but must enforce agreed steps per Kompetenz-kompetenz.
2. Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium (2012) 9 SCC 552 (BALCO)
o Facts: Arbitration seated abroad with Indian law; parties disputed substantive law
application.
o Held: Arbitration is founded on consent and enforces the parties’ bargain, including
chosen substantive law.
3. Bunge SA v. Nidera BV [2015] UKSC 43
o Facts: Commodity sale with price adjustment clause; buyer claimed damages for
seller’s refusal.
o Held: Damages must reflect real loss, not speculative or self-inflicted harm, aligning
with commercial reasonableness.
4. Build India Construction v. Union of India (2002) 5 SCC 433
o Facts: Construction contract allowed unilateral extension; government exercised it,
and contractor challenged.
o Held: Unilateral discretion, when expressly granted, is performance, not alteration, if
exercised in good faith.
5. Channel Island Ferries v. Sealink [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep 323
o Facts: Ferry service disrupted by industrial action; claimant sought damages for non-
performance.
o Held: Applied the "but for" test for causation in force majeure—performance
excused if external events prevented it despite readiness.
6. Classic Maritime v. Limbungan [2019] EWCA Civ 1102
o Facts: Shipping contract delayed by weather; seller invoked force majeure and later
delivered.
o Held: Force majeure requires genuine efforts to perform. Subsequent delivery proves
intent, reinforcing good faith.
7. Emirates Trading Agency LLC v. Prime Mineral Exports [2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm)
o Facts: Dispute over a supply contract with a mandatory negotiation clause before
arbitration. Claimant initiated arbitration without negotiation attempts.
o Held: Mandatory negotiation clauses are enforceable preconditions. Failure to
comply renders the claim premature, upholding party autonomy.
8. Energy Watchdog v. CERC (2017) 14 SCC 80
o Facts: Dispute over a power purchase agreement with a force majeure clause,
involving unexpected disruptions affecting performance (specific events not detailed
but relevant to contractual excuses).
o Held: Force majeure clauses are binding if events fall within their scope. Strict
construction applies, but enforcement is mandatory when conditions are met.
9. Hind Construction Contractors v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 720)
o Facts: Construction contract with a deadline; delay due to government action, and
contractor sought relief.
o Held: Mere fixation of a time or date does not make time of the essence unless
intent or contract nature demands it. Flexibility applies.
10. McDermott International v. Burn Standard (2006) 11 SCC 181
o Facts: Shipbuilding contract dispute over damages for delay; claimant sought high
compensation.
o Held: Damages under Section 73 must be natural or contemplated, not remote or
punitive, avoiding windfalls.
11. Orissa Textile Mills v. Ganesh Das (AIR 1961 Pat 107)
o Facts: Delay in goods delivery under a commercial contract; buyer claimed breach
due to late performance.
o Held: Time is not presumed of the essence in commercial contracts unless expressly
stipulated or delay undermines the purpose. Delays are anticipated in trade.
12. Oxford Shipping Co Ltd v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha [1984] 1 All ER 747
o Facts: Two shipping contracts with related disputes; one party sought consolidation
for efficiency despite lack of consent.
o Held: Consolidation refused due to lack of consent. Efficiency cannot override party
autonomy.
13. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur (AIR 1954 SC 44)
o Facts: Land sale contract delayed due to wartime restrictions; buyer sought to
rescind.
o Held: "Impossible" in force majeure covers impracticability or uselessness, not literal
impossibility, if it aligns with the contract’s object.
14. Tjong Very Sumito v. Antig Investments [2009] SGCA 41
o Facts: Overlapping claims from separate contracts; one party pushed for
consolidation based on common facts.
o Held: Separate contracts remain distinct unless expressly linked. Overlapping facts
alone don’t justify consolidation without consent.
Statutes, Provisions, and Treaties
Indian Contract Act, 1872
o Section 55: Time not of the essence unless stipulated or delay defeats purpose.
Compensation applies unless rescission justified.
o Section 62: Novation requires mutual consent; unilateral changes invalid unless
permitted.
o Section 73: Damages limited to natural or contemplated losses, excluding remote or
speculative claims.
Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
o Section 16: Embodies Kompetenz-kompetenz, allowing tribunals to rule on
jurisdiction.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
o Article 16: Tribunal’s competence to decide jurisdiction.
o Article 18: Emphasizes party autonomy and fairness.
SIAC Rules (7th Edition)
o Rule 8: Governs tribunal jurisdiction, requiring contract term compliance.
o Rule 16.1(c): Allows consolidation if compatible, same relationship, and no prejudice
—requires consent.
Key Notes
Negotiation Precondition: Mandatory under Clause 10.2 (Contract 1); no attempt by
Claimant post-1 April demand justifies inadmissibility.
Consolidation: Incompatible clauses (Contract 1: "arising out of or in connection with" vs.
Contract 2: "in relation to") and distinct relationships (Indonesian vs. Chonganese coal) bar
merger.
Force Majeure: Clause 9.1(m) covers geopolitical tensions, supply shocks, and port
congestion (March 2025 facts); "but for" test supports excuse.
Damages: Speculative under Section 73; Claimant’s refusal of TT (Contract 2, Clause 2.2)
breaks causation.
