Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 30.07.2026

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the high-profile arbitration dispute between HPCL Mittal Pipeline Limited (HMPL) and Coastal Marine Construction and Engineering Limited (CMCEL), as adjudicated by the Delhi High Court in May 2025. The case highlights critical issues in contract management, arbitration procedure, and the principles of natural justice in Indian law.

Background and Contractual Dispute

1. Project Overview
   • HMPL operates a 1024 km pipeline from Mundra Port, Gujarat to Bathinda, Punjab, serving a major oil refinery.
   • In 2012, HMPL awarded CMCEL a two-year contract for the operation and maintenance of its Single Point Mooring (SPM) terminal.
2. Emergence of Disputes
   • Performance issues led HMPL to issue show cause notices and ultimately terminate the contract in November 2012.
   • The contract was then awarded to a third-party agency.
   • Unresolved disputes triggered arbitration proceedings as per the contract’s dispute resolution clause.

Arbitration Proceedings and Claims

HMPL’s Claims

HMPL sought compensation for various losses and damages, including:

• Demurrage and Port Charges: Over Rs. 3.3 crore for delays and operational inefficiencies.
• Replacement Costs: Expenses for damaged floating and sub-sea hose strings, accessories, and supervision charges.
• Other Expenses: Charges for hiring vessels, replacing equipment, and additional costs from engaging a new contractor (over Rs. 12 crore).
• Refund of Advance: Rs. 56.9 lakh paid for incomplete work.

CMCEL’s Counter-Claims

CMCEL countered with claims totaling over Rs. 23 crore, including:

• Wrongful Termination: Rs. 16 crore for alleged unjust contract termination.
• Outstanding Invoices: Rs. 5 crore for unpaid dues.
• Performance Guarantee: Rs. 2.09 crore for a guarantee allegedly wrongfully encashed.
• Interest: 12% per annum on the above amounts.

The Arbitral Award and Its Challenge

• The majority of the Arbitral Tribunal awarded HMPL Rs. 16.4 crore (out of Rs. 19 crore claimed) and CMCEL Rs. 4.16 crore (out of Rs. 23 crore claimed), resulting in a net award of Rs. 12.25 crore to HMPL plus arbitration costs.
• Both parties challenged the award in the Delhi High Court:
  • CMCEL argued the award violated natural justice by disregarding its defense.
  • HMPL sought interest on its claims and enforcement of the award.

Key Legal Issues and Court Analysis

1. Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

• The Tribunal treated CMCEL’s Statement of Defence (SOD) as deficient due to lack of a para-wise reply, effectively deeming HMPL’s claims admitted.
• The Court found this approach unjust, as CMCEL had filed a substantive, claim-wise defense and was never clearly instructed to provide a para-wise reply.
• The Tribunal’s failure to communicate procedural requirements or enforce them at the appropriate time was a critical procedural lapse.

2. Applicability of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in Arbitration

• While arbitral tribunals are not bound by the CPC, they may adopt its principles if parties are notified in advance.
• In this case, the Tribunal did not notify parties of strict CPC application, making its reliance on CPC rules for pleadings inappropriate.

3. Consideration of Defenses and Evidence

• The majority award largely ignored CMCEL’s defenses, focusing only on HMPL’s claims and evidence.
• The dissenting arbitrator and the Court emphasized that pleadings should be read holistically, and that both parties’ arguments and evidence must be considered.

4. Remedies and Outcome

• The Court set aside the arbitral award, finding a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness.
• Both parties were allowed to re-agitate their claims and counter-claims in accordance with the law.

Lessons and Implications

1. Importance of Clear Procedural Directions
   • Arbitral tribunals must clearly communicate procedural requirements and enforce them consistently.
2. Holistic Consideration of Pleadings
   • Awards based on technicalities rather than substance risk being set aside for violating natural justice.
3. Judicial Oversight in Arbitration
   • Courts will intervene in arbitral awards where fundamental procedural fairness is compromised, even within the limited scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Conclusion

The HMPL vs. CMCEL case underscores the necessity for arbitral tribunals to balance procedural flexibility with fairness and transparency. It serves as a cautionary tale for parties and arbitrators alike, emphasizing that substance must prevail over form, and that the right to be heard is paramount in any dispute resolution process.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com