Delhi High Court Re-Affirms “Partial-Severability” under Section 34 and Upholds Government-Linked Pricing of APM Gas

1. Introduction

In Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. GAIL (India) Ltd., Delhi High Court (Subramonium Prasad J, 19 Aug 2025) dismissed five petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“A&C Act”), thereby sustaining an arbitral award that had:

Rejected GSFC’s challenge to GAIL’s demand for differential gas prices based on end-use, and
Allowed GAIL’s counter-claims totalling roughly ₹360 crore.

Beyond the commercial dispute, the Court crystallised two doctrinal points of wider importance:

Courts possess a limited power to sever and set aside only the “invalid” segment of an arbitral award while preserving the rest, consistent with the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft (2025).
Where a contract expressly incorporates “Government directives” for commodity pricing, such directives prevail, even if they post-date the contract; thus, subsidised APM gas must be used only for urea, failing which market/RLNG prices apply.

2. Case Background

Parties:
- Petitioner – Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (GSFC), a Gujarat-promoted public company manufacturing fertilisers/chemicals.
- Respondent – GAIL (India) Ltd., a Central Government undertaking that transports and markets natural gas.
Contracts in dispute (2008–2016) – Five separate gas-supply agreements involving APM gas and other domestic sources.
Government policy matrix – MoPNG letters (2005, 2006, 2014, 2015) restricted subsidised Administered Price Mechanism (“APM”) gas to urea production only and authorised GAIL to levy market/RLNG rates for other uses if Fertiliser Industry Coordination Committee (“FICC”) certificates were missing.
Arbitral proceedings (Justice K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, ret.) – Award dated 29 July 2023 upheld GAIL’s pricing and allowed its counter-claims.
Section 34 petitions – GSFC argued: (i) no contractual bar on using gas for non-urea; (ii) GAIL ignored MoPNG’s procedural conditions; (iii) counter-claims were time-barred; and (iv) arbitrator “copy-pasted” reasons.

3. Summary of the Judgment

The Court reiterated the restricted supervisory scope under Section 34: only “patent illegality” or breach of fundamental policy warrants interference.
It confirmed that all five contracts incorporated MoPNG directions; hence GSFC’s liberty of usage was always subject to Government control.
Finding no perversity in the arbitrator’s reliance on FICC certificates and worksheets, the Court sustained the award on merits.
On limitation, the Court severed the arbitrator’s extraneous reference to Sections 15, 17 & Art. 112 of the Limitation Act but upheld the ultimate conclusion that claims were timely because they arose only upon receipt of FICC certificates (delay attributable to GSFC).
Petitions were dismissed; award stands.

4. Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft (2025, Const. Bench) – Held that courts may modify/partially set aside an award when valid and invalid portions are separable. Delhi HC applied this to excise the arbitrator’s surplus reasoning on Sections 15, 17 & Art. 112 but kept the rest of the award intact.
Ssangyong Engg. & Construction v. NHAI (2019) and DMRC v. DAMEPL (2024) – Definitively narrowed “public policy” and “patent illegality”. Court used these yardsticks to test the award’s findings on (i) contract interpretation, (ii) evidence assessment, and (iii) limitation.
Western Geco, Associate Builders, Patel Engg., Dyna Technologies – Supply the three-part test for perversity: no evidence / irrelevant evidence / ignoring vital evidence. Court found none were breached.
OPG Power v. Enexio (2025) – Re-stated that an award based on little or weak evidence is not necessarily perverse; arbitrator is master of facts. Quoted extensively.

4.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

Contractual Incorporation of Government Directives
• Clauses 16/17 (2008 PMT contracts) and 10/31 (2016 HVJ/Gandhar & 2011 Term Sheet) expressly make GOI directives binding.
• Since MoPNG had limited APM gas to urea, GSFC’s claim of “unrestricted industrial application” failed.
Evidence Treatment
• Arbitrator relied on FICC-certified usage data and GAIL’s rate-computation worksheets.
• Court held worksheets were unchallenged in substance; arbitral forum need not follow strict Evidence Act.
Limitation Analysis & Severability
• Cause of action arose only upon issuance of each FICC certificate; therefore claims (2018-19) were within three years.
• Portions invoking Sections 15, 17 & Art. 112 Limitation Act were unnecessary; severed without disturbing result – a textbook application of partial-severability post-Gayatri.
Minimal Judicial Intervention
• No patent illegality: award was possible, not impossible.
• No violation of natural justice: GSFC had full opportunity to rebut GAIL’s claims and documents.

4.3 Expected Impact

Arbitration Law – Strengthens emerging doctrine that courts can slice off a defective fragment of an award rather than scrap the whole, bringing Indian practice closer to UNCITRAL Model Law Article 34(2) proviso.
Energy & Infrastructure Contracts – Reaffirms that regulatory price controls and end-use restrictions survive contractual freedom when explicitly incorporated, offering comfort to PSUs who act as Government nominees.
Public-Private Transactions – Puts private counterparties on notice that subsidy-linked commodities (like APM gas) carry stringent audit trails; diversion may trigger ex post price revisions without violating commercial sanctity.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

APM Gas: “Administered Price Mechanism” gas – domestic natural gas sold at a Government-fixed subsidised price, not market-determined.
FICC: Fertiliser Industry Coordination Committee – body under Department of Fertilisers that certifies how much gas each fertiliser plant actually used for urea production.
RLNG: Re-gasified Liquefied Natural Gas. Imported LNG turned back into gas; typically the highest benchmark price in the domestic market.
Patent Illegality: A blatant error apparent on the face of the award (e.g., decision based on no evidence, or ignoring vital evidence). Post-2015 amendment, it is the primary ground for setting aside a domestic award.
Partial-Severability: The power of a court, recognised in Gayatri Balasamy, to excise and set aside only that part of an arbitral award which is invalid while letting the rest stand.

6. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment is significant on two intertwined tracks: it fortifies contractual deference to Government pricing policy in the highly regulated gas sector, and it operationalises the Supreme Court’s recent green light for partial-severability under Section 34. Commercial parties who embed “Government directive” clauses must now factor in dynamic policy shifts; conversely, arbitral awards will enjoy stronger immunity, with courts empowered to trim rather than terminate. The decision thereby advances the twin objectives of Indian arbitration law—party autonomy and finality—while respecting the sovereign’s prerogative in resource regulation.