- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
S&A Law Offices Successfully Represented Jindal Saw Limited Against The Gas Authority Of India Limited
S&A Law Offices Successfully Represented Jindal Saw Limited Against the Gas Authority of India Limited
The High Court of Delhi delivered a judgment on October 29, 2024, in the case of Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) vs. SAW Pipes Ltd. (SPL) (now Jindal Saw Ltd.).
In the matter at hand, GAIL filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a judgment dated November 26, 2010, which upheld an arbitral award dated December 7, 2002, amended on March 21, 2003.
The arbitral tribunal had awarded SPL a sum of USD 7,230,378.23 along with interest and costs, holding GAIL responsible for delays in taking delivery of pipes, thus not entitled to reduce the price payable to SPL.
The High Court held that GAIL was responsible for delays in lifting pipes, and SPL was entitled to the full contract price without reductions. SPL was awarded interest at 6% per annum on the USD amount and 12% per annum on the INR amount, along with 50,00,000 as costs.
The court found no merit in GAIL's appeal, agreeing with the arbitral tribunal's interpretation of the contract and its findings. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.
The S&A Law Offices team was led by Senior Partner Vijay K Singh along with Principal Associate Shruti Manchanda.