REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2011 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7562 OF 2011

YOGRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. … APPELLANT   

Vs.

SSANGYONG ENGINEERING &  CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.  … RESPONDENT

O R D E R

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  2011,  seeking  

clarification and correction of certain 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  &  

Construction Company Limited, submitted that in paragraph 5  

of the aforesaid 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  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-B  to  the  present  

application.

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  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 of Singapore).  

Mr.  Rautray  submitted  that  it  was  a  clear  case  of  

inadvertence in paragraph 35 that needs to be clarified by  

indicating  that  the  Curial  law  is  the  International  

Arbitration law of Singapore and not the SIAC rules.   

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 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  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  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  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 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  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 been made in paragraph  

35 that the Curial law of the arbitration would be the SIAC  

Rules, what has been subsequently indicated in paragraph 37  

of  the  judgment  is  that  International  Arbitration  Act  of  

Singapore would be the law of the arbitration.   

9. The judgment and order dated 1st September, 2011, be read  

and  understood  on  the  basis  of  the  corrections  and  

clarifications hereby made in this order.  

10. The  interlocutory  application  filed  on  behalf  of  

SSANGYONG  Engineering  &  Construction  Company  Limited,  is  

allowed and disposed of accordingly.

…………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi Dated: 15.12.2011