In Brief
SEAMEC Ltd. claimed amounts under a contract with Oil India Limited. When Oil India rejected the claim, the dispute was referred to a three-member Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal made an award in SEAMEC's favour, but the High Court set it aside, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of Clause 23 unreasonable and perverse. The Supreme Court dismissed SEAMEC's appeal, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of Clause 23 was not a possible interpretation of the contract and failed to apply the principle that all contract clauses must be considered together. Although not fully agreeing with the High Court's reasoning on frustration doctrine, the Court upheld the award's setting aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.