Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Petitioners filed applications under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking directions to restrain the Respondent-Bank from negotiating or encashing Letters of Credit. The Petitioners contended that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdown imposed by Central and State Governments, their contracts with Respondent No. 1 became unenforceable on grounds of frustration, impossibility, and impracticability, relying on Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The contracts involved Respondent No. 1, based in South Korea, supplying steel products shipped from South Korea to the Petitioners in Mumbai. The contracts included a Force Majeure clause (Article 11) and an Arbitration clause (Article 12) specifying governing laws and arbitration forums in Korea, Singapore, or London.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to ad-interim relief restraining the Bank from negotiating/encashing the Letters of Credit in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown.
  2. Whether the Force Majeure clause in the contracts applies so as to excuse the Petitioners’ performance or affect the Bank’s role in negotiating Letters of Credit.
  3. The applicability and effect of the contractual terms, including shipment obligations and governing law, on the dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 1.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The contracts became unenforceable due to frustration, impossibility, and impracticability caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown.
  • Reliance on Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to support termination of contracts.

Respondent No. 1's Arguments

  • The Force Majeure clause applies only to Respondent No. 1 and does not aid the Petitioners.
  • The contracts are on a Cost and Freight (CFR) basis, and Respondent No. 1 has fulfilled its obligations by shipping the goods.
  • The Petitioners’ inability to perform towards their own purchasers or suffer damages is irrelevant to Respondent No. 1’s contractual performance.
  • Notifications and advisories classify steel distribution and related port activities as essential services, allowing continued operations during lockdown.
  • The lockdown is temporary and does not excuse the Petitioners from their payment obligations.

Respondent No. 3-Bank's Position

  • The Letters of Credit are independent transactions with the Bank, which is not concerned with underlying contractual disputes between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 1.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Energy Watchdog v. CERC (2017) 14 SCC 80 Interpretation of contractual obligations and applicability of force majeure/frustration principles. The court found this precedent distinguishable on facts and not supportive of the Petitioners’ case.
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangure & Co., (1954) SCR 310 Principles relating to frustration and impossibility of contracts. The court held this precedent distinguishable and not assisting the Petitioners.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of Letters of Credit as independent transactions between the Bank and parties, separate from the underlying contract disputes. It emphasized that the Force Majeure clause was applicable only to the Respondent No. 1 and did not provide relief to the Petitioners. Given that the contracts were on a CFR basis and the goods had already been shipped, Respondent No. 1 had fulfilled its contractual obligations. The Petitioners’ difficulties in performing towards their own purchasers did not affect Respondent No. 1’s performance. The court noted government notifications classifying steel distribution and related port activities as essential services, allowing uninterrupted shipment and logistics during the lockdown. The temporary nature of the lockdown was insufficient to excuse the Petitioners from payment obligations. The cited precedents were found to be factually distinguishable and did not support the Petitioners’ claims.

Holding and Implications

The court rejected the Petitioners’ request for ad-interim relief restraining the Bank from negotiating or encashing the Letters of Credit.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Bank may proceed with the Letters of Credit without restraint, recognizing the independence of such financial instruments from the underlying contractual disputes. No new legal precedent was established as the court relied on existing principles distinguishing the roles and obligations of the parties under the contracts and Letters of Credit.

    Standard Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. G.S. Global Corp. And Others

    A.A. Sayed, J.:— The above Petitions have been filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking directions restraining the Respondent-Bank from negotiating/encashing the Letters of Credit.

    2. It is the case of the Petitioners that in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown declared by the Central/State Government, its contracts with Respondent No. 1 were terminated as unenforceable on account of frustration, impossibility and impracticability. The Petitioners have relied upon Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972.

    3. Under the Contracts the Respondent No. 1 which has its head office at South Korea was to supply certain steel products, the shipments of which were to be dispatched from South Korea, to the Petitioners at Mumbai. The contracts were subject to General Terms and Conditions, Articles 11 and 12 whereof read as follows:

    “Article 11. Force Majeure: In the event of an Act of God (including but not limited to floods, earthquake, typhoons, epidemics and other natural calamities), war or armed conflict or serious threat of the same, government order or regulation, labor dispute or any other similar cause beyond the control of “Seller” or any of its suppliers or sub-contractors which seriously affects the ability of “Seller” or any of its suppliers or sub-contractors to manufacture and deliver the “Goods”, “Seller” may, at its sole discretion and upon written notice to “Buyer” either terminate the Contract or any portion affected thereof by such event(s), or delay performance of the Contract, in whole or in part, for a reasonable period of time. Any such delay of performance by “Seller” shall not preclude “Seller's” later right to terminate the Contract or any portion affected thereof by such event(s). In no event shall “Seller” be liable to “Buyer” or to any third party for any costs or damages arising indirectly or consequentially from such non-fulfillment of or delay in the performance of all or part of the Contract”

    Article 12. Governing Law & Arbitration: The Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of Kerea/Singapore/London. All disputes, controversies or differences which may arise between the parties, out of or in relation to or in connection with the Contract, or for the breach thereof, shall be finally settled by arbitration in Seoul, Korea/Singapore/London in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the respective Commercial Arbitration Board and under the Laws of Korea/Singapore/London. The award rendered by the arbitration shall be final and binding upon both parties concerned.”

    4. Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (in the first 3 Petitions), Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (in the last 2 Petitions), the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3-Bank (in the first 3 Petitions), in my view the Petitioners are not entitled to any ad-interim reliefs for the reasons stated herein-below:

    a. The Letters of Credit are an independent transaction with the Bank and the Bank is not concerned with underlying disputes between the Petitioners who are buyers and the Respondent No. 1 who is the seller.

    b. The Force Majeure clause in the present contracts is applicable only to the Respondent No. 1 and cannot come to the aid of the Petitioners.

    c. The contract terms are on Cost and Freight basis (CFR) and the Respondent No. 1 has complied with its obligations and performed its part of the contracts and the goods have been already shipped from South Korea. The fact that the Petitioners would not be able to perform its obligations so far as its own purchasers are concerned and/or it would suffer damages, is not a factor which can be considered and held against the Respondent No. 1.

    d. The Notifications/Advisories relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 does suggest that the distribution of steel has been declared as an essential service. There are no restrictions on its movement and all ports and port related activities including the movement of vehicles and manpower, operations of Container Freight Station and warehouses and offices of Custom Houses Agents have also been declared as essential services. The Notification of the Director General of Shipping, Mumbai, states that there would be no container detention charges on import and export shipments during the lockdown period.

    e. In any event, the lockdown would be for a limited period and the lockdown cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioners so as to resile from its contractual obligations with the Respondent No. 1 of making payments.

    f. The Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Energy Watchdog Verus CERC (2017) 14 SCC 80 and Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangure & Co., (1954) SCR 310 do not assist the case of the Petitioners and are distinguishable on facts.

    5. In the light of the above, ad-interim reliefs shall stand rejected.

    6. List the Petitions as per CMIS date.

    7. All concerned to act on the ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Personal Assistant.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Standard Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. G.S. Global Corp. And Others
    (Apr 8, 2020)