{"id":85255,"date":"2007-02-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007"},"modified":"2018-05-25T22:34:08","modified_gmt":"2018-05-25T17:04:08","slug":"national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"National Thermal Power … vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
National Thermal Power … vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: A Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: A.K. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1953 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nNATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSIEMENS ATKEINGESELLSCHAFT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/02\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nA.K. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
A.K. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Delhi High Court
\ndated 24-5-2005 challenging the partial award given by the International
\nChamber of Commerce, Arbitration Tribunal on 31-7-2002.\n<\/p>\n
2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on
\n6-12-1999 the parties entered into a contract for setting up of 817 MW Gas
\nBased Combined Cycle Power Project at Dadri, U.P. at a price of DEM
\n324,405,000 equivalent to Rs.2,190,000,000\/- (Rupees two thousand one
\nhundred ninety million). At the request of the respondent- Siemens
\nAtkeingesellschaft (hereinafter to be referred to as “SAG”) three separate
\ncontracts were entered into with cross-fall breach clause. One contract was
\nwith respondent -SAG known as “First Contract” and the other with its
\nassociates, namely Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), New Delhi and
\nthe third with Siemens Limited, Bombay. Considerable delay occurred in
\nexecution of the contract which was mostly attributable to the appellant-
\nNational Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to as
\n“NTPC”), due to delay in opening of Letters of Credit in favour of the
\nrespondent-SAG and in obtaining import licences for various equipments from
\nStatutory Authorities. Respondent raised several claims against the
\nappellant-NTPC for losses resulting from delay. On the other hand, the
\nappellant was also facing acute difficulty in getting the critical
\ncomponents and spare parts and tools from the respondent. In order to sort
\nout the said disputes, a high-powered meeting of the parties was held on
\n6th\/7th April, 2002 in which several decisions were taken. One of the
\ndecisions taken in the meeting was that the respondent was to supply the
\ncritical components and spare parts etc. to the appellant-NTPC on its part
\nand on the other hand the appellant-NTPC agreed to look into the claim
\nraised by the respondent-SAG with more positive approach in view of the
\nfact that there was delay in arranging import licences and opening of
\nLetter of Credit by the appellant-NTPC. In pursuance to the decision, the
\nrespondent-SAG supplied the critical components etc. but the appellant-NTPC
\ndid not favourably consider the claim of the respondent-SAG for damages on
\naccount of the aforesaid delay. Subsequently, the respondent-SAG made a
\nreference to ICC Court of Arbitration, Paris for settlement of their
\ndisputes\/claim to compensation on account of delay in terms of Clause 27 of
\nthe Contract. The ICC International Court of Arbitration registered the
\nreference as Case No. 11728\/ACS and on 5th May, 2002 issued terms of
\nreference. The ICC International Court of Arbitration was comprised of
\nthree Arbitrators, namely Mr. Arthur Marriott QC, Chairman and Mr. Justice
\nR.S. Pathak and Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmadi, two former Chief Justices of the
\nSupreme Court of India. While the claim of the respondent-SAG related
\nlargely to compensation on account of delay on the part of the appellant-
\nNTPC in procuring the import licences and belated opening of the Letter of
\nCredit in favour of the respondent, the appellant-NTPC besides filing their
\ndefence to the said claims also filed several counter claims on various
\ncounts amounting to hundreds of crores of rupees against the respondent-
\nSAG. The respondent-SAG resisted the said counter claims of the appellant-
\nNTPC inter alia on the grounds that the counter claims were not arbitrable
\nbecause the claims had been waived and\/or abandoned and\/or discharged
\nand\/or satisfied or compromised and the appellant had failed to fulfil the
\ncondition precedent to arbitration specified in Clauses 26 & 27 of the
\nGeneral Conditions of Contract. Number of issues were framed and the
\nTribunal after considering the submissions of the parties, gave a partial
\naward on 31-7-2002 and held that the claim of the respondent-SAG was
\nmaintainable and was not barred by limitation while the counter claims of
\nthe appellant-NTPC was not admissible because the same were caught by the
\nagreement contained in the minutes of meeting (MoM) dated 6th\/7th April,
\n2000. Aggrieved against this partial award so far as it non-suited the
\nappellant-NTPC in respect of their counter claims, the appellant-NTPC
\ndirectly approached the High Court by filing an appeal.\n<\/p>\n
3. The preliminary objection which was raised before the High Court was
\nwhether the appeal filed against the partial award of the ICC International
\nCourt of Arbitration was maintainable or not. Learned Single Judge of the
\nHigh Court after elaborate discussions on the subject, took the view that
\nthe appeal under Section 37(2)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
\n1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) was not maintainable. It
\nwas observed by the learned Single Judge as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“This Court on a thorough examination of the material obtaining on
\n\trecord, more particularly on a conjoint reading of the pleadings of
\n\tthe parties filed before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Terms of
\n\tReference framed by the International Chamber of Commerce, the
\n\twritten submissions filed by the parties before the Arbitral
\n\tTribunal prior and after the closure of the hearing, the tenor of
\n\tthe reasoning and finding recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal in its
\n\tdispensation titled as “Partial Final Award” and on a true
\n\tconstruction and scope of the provisions of Section 16 and Section
\n\t37 of the Act, is clearly of the view that the impugned
\n\tdispensation dated 31-7-2002 rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal
\n\tcannot by any stretch be said to be an order passed by the Tribunal
\n\teither under the provisions of Section 16(2) or Section 16(3) of
\n\tthe Act and in any case deciding the question of jurisdiction in
\n\tthe negative which will fall within the ambit of appelable orders
\n\twithin the meaning of Section 37(2)(a) of the Act. In the opinion
\n\tof this Court, the impugned partial Award is nothing but an Award
\n\tof interim Award deciding the counter claims of the NTPC finally on
\n\tmerits. This Court, therefore, must hold that the present appeal
\n\tfiled by the NTPC against such a Partial Award under the provisions
\n\tof Section 37(2)(a) of the Act is misconceived and is not
\n\tmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the
\nappellant-NTPC.\n<\/p>\n
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
\nThe question before us in the present appeal is whether the view taken by
\nlearned Single Judge of the High Court that the appeal under Section 37 of
\nthe Act is maintainable against the interim award or not. Learned counsel
\nfor the appellant took us through all the details of the pleadings and
\ntried to persuade us that the question of jurisdiction and limitation is
\ninvolved, therefore, the appeal is maintainable under Section 37 of the
\nAct. The first and foremost question before us is to examine the provisions
\nof Section 37 read with Section 16 of the Act. Section 37 of the Act reads
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“37. Appelable orders.- (1) An appeal shall lie from the following
\n\torders (and from no others) to the Court authorized by law to hear
\n\tappeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order,
\n\tnamely:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9;\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under
\n\tsection 34.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order granting of
\n\tthe arbitral tribunal-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) accepting the plea referred in sub-section (2) or sub-section
\n\t(3) of section 16; or<\/p>\n
\t(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section\n<\/p>\n
\t17.<\/p>\n
\t(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under
\n\tthis section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away
\n\tany right to appeal to the Supreme Court.”\n<\/p>\n
So far as Section 37(1)(a) of the Act is concerned, it contemplates that no
\nappeal shall lie from any orders except, namely granting or refusing to
\ngrant measure under Section 9. Section 9 deals with interim orders and
\nSection 37(1)(b) relates to order passed under Section 34 i.e. setting
\naside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. Sub-
\nsection (2)(a) of Section 37 provides that appeal shall also lie to the
\nCourt from an order of the arbitral tribunal accepting the plea under sub-
\nsection (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 16 and sub-section (2)(b)
\ncontemplates appeal against the order granting or refusing to grant an
\ninterim measure under section 17 i.e. at the time of pendency of the
\narbitration proceedings by the Tribunal. Sub-section (3) says that no
\nsecond appeal shall lie from the orders passed in appeal under this
\nsection. Now we shall examine the scope of Section 16, which reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction.-
\n\t(1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction,
\n\tincluding ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or
\n\tvalidity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose,<\/p>\n
\t(a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be
\n\ttreated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the
\n\tcontract; and<\/p>\n
\t(b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null
\n\tand void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the
\n\tarbitration cause.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction
\n\tshall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of
\n\tdefence; however, a party shall not be precluded from raising such
\n\ta plea merely because that he has appointed, or participated in the
\n\tappointment of, an arbitrator.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) A plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its
\n\tauthority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be
\n\tbeyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral
\n\tproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) The arbitral tribunal may, in either of the cases referred to
\n\tin sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), admit a later plea if it
\n\tconsiders the delay justified.\n<\/p>\n
\t(5) The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to in
\n\tsub-section (2) or sub-section (3) and, where the arbitral tribunal
\n\ttakes a decision rejecting the plea, continue with the arbitral
\n\tproceedings and make an arbitral award.\n<\/p>\n
\t(6) A party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an
\n\tapplication for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance
\n\twith section 34.”\n<\/p>\n
Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 16 deal with jurisdiction. Sub-section
\n(2) of Section 16 says that a plea of lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal
\nshould be raised at the earliest i.e. not later than submission of
\nstatement of defence and it further says that a party shall not be
\nprecluded from raising such a plea merely because he has appointed, or
\nparticipated in the appointment of an arbitrator. Sub-section (3) says that
\nthe plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority
\nshall be raised during the arbitral proceedings. A reading of sub-sections
\n(2) & (3) of Section 16 makes it clear that it deals with jurisdiction i.e.
\nthat the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction or that the arbitral
\ntribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. In either of the two situations, a
\ndirect appeal is maintainable under sub-section (2) of Section 37.
\nTherefore, in the light of this legal position we shall examine whether the
\ntribunal while awarding an interim award has exceeded its jurisdiction or
\nit had no jurisdiction whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
5. So far as sub-section (2) of Section 16 is concerned, we may
\nstraightaway dispose of the question of lack of jurisdiction on the part of
\nthe tribunal since that is not involved in the present case. But the
\nemphasis in the present case was that the tribunal had exceeded its
\njurisdiction in passing a partial award. The facts have already been
\nmentioned above. It may be relevant to mention here the relevant clause of
\nthe agreement which deals with arbitration. Clauses 26 & 27 of the General
\nConditions of Contract reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“26.0. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE<\/p>\n
\t26.1. Any dispute(s) or difference(s) arising out of or in
\n\tconnection with the Contract shall to the extent possible be
\n\tsettled amicably between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.2. Except as otherwise specifically provided in clause 27.0
\n\therein under all unsettled dispute(s) or difference(s) arising out
\n\tof or in connection with the Contract shall in the first instance
\n\tbe decided by an engineer whose decision shall be final and binding
\n\ton the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.0 ARBITRATION<\/p>\n
\t27.1. If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall
\n\tarise between the Owner and the Contractor, arising out of the
\n\tContract for the performance of the Works whether during the
\n\tprogress of the Works or after its completion or whether before or
\n\tafter the termination, abandonment or breach of the Contract, it
\n\tshall, in the first place, be referred to and settled by the
\n\tEngineer, who, within a period of thirty (30) days after being
\n\trequested by either party to do so shall give written notice of his
\n\tdecision to the Owner and the Contractor.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.2. Save as hereinafter provided, such decision in respect of
\n\tevery matter so referred shall be final and binding upon the
\n\tparties until the completion of the works and shall forthwith be
\n\tgiven effect to by the Contractor who shall proceed with the Works
\n\twith all due diligence whether he or the Owner requires arbitration
\n\tas hereinafter provided or not.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.3. If after the Engineer has given written notice of his
\n\tdecision to the parties no claim to arbitration has been
\n\tcommunicated to him by either party within thirty (30) days from
\n\tthe receipt of such notice, the said decision shall become final
\n\tand binding on the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.4. In the event of the Engineer failing to notify his decision
\n\tas aforesaid within thirty (30) days after being requested as
\n\taforesaid, or in the event of either the Owner or the Contractor
\n\tbeing dissatisfied with any such decision, or within thirty (30)
\n\tdays, as the case may be, either party may require that the matters
\n\tin dispute be referred to arbitration as hereinafter provided.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.5. All disputes or differences in respect of which the decision
\n\tif any of the Engineer has not become final or binding as
\n\taforesaid, shall be settled by arbitration in the manner
\n\thereinafter provided.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.6. In the event of foreign Contractor, the arbitration shall be
\n\tconducted by three arbitrators, one each to be nominated by the
\n\tOwner and the Contractor and the third to be named by the President
\n\tof the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, save as above all
\n\tRules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber
\n\tof Commerce shall apply to such arbitrations. The arbitration shall
\n\tbe conducted at such places as the arbitrators may determine.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.7. The decision of the majority of the arbitrators shall be
\n\tfinal and binding upon the parties. The expense of the arbitration
\n\tshall be paid as may be determined by the arbitrators. The
\n\tarbitrators may from time to time, with the consent of all the
\n\tparties enlarge the time for making the award. In the event of any
\n\tof the aforesaid arbitrators dying, neglecting, resigning or being
\n\tunable to act for any reason it will be lawful for the party
\n\tconcerned to nominate another arbitrator in place of the outgoing
\n\tarbitrator.”\n<\/p>\n
6. In the present case, when the matter was approached by the respondent
\nherein before the Engineer, he declined and therefore, the matter was
\nreferred to arbitration and the Arbitrators initiated the proceedings. In
\nthat a counter-claim was made. The counter-claim pertained to the issues
\nwhich have already been settled in the minutes of meeting of 6th\/7th April,
\n2000. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent against the counter-
\nclaim was that it is without jurisdiction and it is not arbitrable because
\nthe counter-claim Nos. 1 to 7 have already been settled by the minutes of
\nthe meeting dated 6th\/7th April, 2000. The Arbitrators after considering
\nthe counter-claim came to the finding that as per the minutes of meeting
\ndated 6th\/7th April, 2000 the counter-claims have already been settled.
\nEach of the counter-claim was examined by the arbitrators. The Arbitrators
\nin their award observed in Para 4.58 that in the Tribunal’s view none of
\nthese alleged Counterclaims was admissible and majority of these claims
\nstood settled. It was also observed while discussing each of the counter
\nclaim that counter-claim Nos. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 were already covered by
\nthe minutes of meeting dated 6th\/7th April, 2000 and finally in paragraphs
\n4.60 & 4.61 it was observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“4.60 As will be seen, the majority of the Counterclaims is said to
\n\tbe caught by the settlement agreement of the 6th\/7th April, 2000
\n\twhich was the subject of the exchange of correspondence on the 5th
\n\tMay 2000 and the 10th May 2000 to which reference has already been
\n\tmade above. On the fact of it the MOM taken in conjunction with the
\n\tsubsequent correspondence clearly show a binding agreement for good
\n\tconsideration whereby a number of claims were compromised. Thus,
\n\tparagraphs 2,3 and 4 reflect a discussion about critical components
\n\tand operational guarantee. Those matters were settled as appears
\n\tfrom paragraph 5.\n<\/p>\n
\t“so as to avoid any arbitration on either side in order to ensure
\n\tsupply of critical components by SAG for the forthcoming overhauls.
\n\tAccordingly, various issue (sic) were discussed and agreements were
\n\treached as per the following paragraphs as a package deal.”\n<\/p>\n
\t4.61. What then follows is a series of specific agreements clearly
\n\trecorded as such and thereby setling the disputes which then
\n\texisted. And by paragraph 15 there was express confirmation by both
\n\tparties:\n<\/p>\n
\t“that there were no other issues to be resolved in first and third
\n\tcontracts.”\n<\/p>\n
7. The Tribunal also held that certain objections were taken with regard to
\nthe agreement not being binding which was disposed of by the Tribunal as it
\nhad no merits because the agreement was voluntarily made between the
\nparties and it was not under duress or by deception. In paragraph 4.64 of
\nthe Award it was concluded that so far as counter claim Nos.2,3,4,5,6,8,9 &
\n10 were concerned, they were caught by settlement. So far as counterclaim
\nNo.7 was concerned, it was mere reservation of right and so far as
\ncounterclaim No. 1 was concerned, it was the opinion of the Tribunal that
\nfive purchase orders were confirmed and supplied and therefore, no dispute
\ncould arise. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that in view of settlement of
\nissues in the minutes of meeting dated 6th\/7th April, 2000 it was
\nunnecessary for the Tribunal to consider any additional defence to the
\ncounterclaim and it was held that they were not admissible and not capable
\nof being included in that reference to arbitration. Accordingly, this
\npartial award was passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered all these
\ncounterclaims and recoded the aforesaid finding.\n<\/p>\n
8. Now, the only question that remains to be decided in the present case is
\nwhether against the order of partial award an appeal is maintainable
\ndirectly under Section 37 of the Act or not. We have considered the
\nsubmissions of learned counsel for the appellant and after going through
\nthe counterclaim and the partial award, we are of opinion that no question
\nof jurisdiction arises in the matter so as to enable the appellant to file
\na direct appeal under Section 37 of the Act before the High Court. As
\nalready mentioned above, an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 37 only
\nlies if there is an order passed under Section 16(2) & (3) of the Act.
\nSection 16(2) & (3) deals with the exercise of jurisdiction. The plea of
\njurisdiction was not taken by the appellant. It was taken by the respondent
\nin order to meet their counterclaim. But it was not in the context of the
\nfact that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, it was in the context that this
\nquestion of counterclaim was no more open to be decided for the simple
\nreason that all the issues which had been raised in counterclaim Nos. 1 to
\n10 had already been settled in the minutes of meeting dated 6th\/7th April,
\n2000 and it was recorded that no other issues to be resolved in 1st and 3rd
\ncontracts. Therefore, we fail to understand how the question of
\njurisdiction was involved in the matter. In fact it was in the context of
\nthe fact that the entire counterclaims have already been satisfied and
\nsettled in the meeting that it was concluded that no further issues
\nremained to be settled. In this context, the counterclaims filed by the
\nappellant was opposed. If any grievance was there, that should have been by
\nthe respondent and not by the appellant. It is only the finding of fact
\nrecorded by the Tribunal after considering the counterclaim vis-a-vis the
\nminutes of the meeting dated 6th\/7th April, 2000. Therefore, there was no
\nquestion of jurisdiction involved in the matter so as to enable the
\nappellant to approach the High Court directly. The High Court has also
\nexamined this matter and clearly observed in its order in paragraph 9 as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Therefore, in the case in hand it is to be seen if the plea raised
\n\tby the Siemens AG in regard to the counter-claims of NTPC was a
\n\tplea pertaining to lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal or
\n\tarbitrability of the said dispute within the meaning of Section
\n\t16(2) or Section 16(3) of the Act or it was the plea in regard to
\n\tthe merits of the counter-claim and its existence\/subsistence on
\n\tthe ground that the counter-claims raised by the NTPC stood settled
\n\tand did not subsist any longer more particularly in view of the
\n\tdecisions taken by the parties as reflected in the MoM dated 6th
\n\tand 7th April, 2000.”\n<\/p>\n
9. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction in the present controversy did
\nnot arise because the counter-claim was opposed by the respondent-SAG as
\nthe same has since been stood settled. In view of the finding of fact
\nrecorded by the Tribunal that all the counter-claims stood covered by the
\ndecisions of the minutes of meeting though it was initially opposed by the
\nrespondent-SAG that it was not arbitrable or the Tribunal could not go into
\ncounter-claim, despite that it examined on the merit of the matter and on
\nthe merits the Tribunal disposed of the counter-claim by giving partial
\naward. We fail to understand how can the appellant-NTPC can raise the
\nquestion of jurisdiction and bring its case under Section 16(2) & (3).\n<\/p>\n
10. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to refer to some of the
\ndecisions of this Court but we do not think those decisions need to be
\nnoted in the present case as the whole question turned on the facts
\ninvolved in the present case and we are satisfied that the partial award
\ncan be given and against this partial award the appellant has remedy under
\nsection 34 of the Act and thereafter they could file appeal under Section
\n37 of the Act. But no direct appeal would lie before the High Court because
\nno jurisdictional issue was involved. The counter-claim was disposed of on
\nthe basic fact that the counter-claims had been settled by the MoM dated
\n6th\/7th April, 2000. In this view of the matter, we need not refer to the
\ndecisions cited by learned counsel and other written submissions made by
\nthe appellant. We are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court is
\ncorrect, appeal was not maintainable under Section 37(2) of the Act before
\nthe High Court and there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by
\nthe High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India National Thermal Power … vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007 Author: A Mathur Bench: A.K. Mathur, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1953 of 2006 PETITIONER: NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. RESPONDENT: SIEMENS ATKEINGESELLSCHAFT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/02\/2007 BENCH: A.K. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85255","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNational Thermal Power ... vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National Thermal Power ... vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-25T17:04:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Thermal Power … vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-25T17:04:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3826,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007\",\"name\":\"National Thermal Power ... vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-25T17:04:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Thermal Power … vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"National Thermal Power ... vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Thermal Power ... vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-25T17:04:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Thermal Power … vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-25T17:04:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007"},"wordCount":3826,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007","name":"National Thermal Power ... vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-25T17:04:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-thermal-power-vs-siemens-atkeingesellschaft-on-28-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Thermal Power … vs Siemens Atkeingesellschaft on 28 February, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85255","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=85255"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85255\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}