National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/S Synergy Steels Ltd.

Delhi HC1 May 2019O.M.P./879/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, alleging duress in settlement and insurance exclusions. The Court dismissed the challenge, holding the factual findings regarding duress and the cause of damage were not perverse, and exclusion pleas were not maintained before the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to cost.

What the court decided

AI extract

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Synergy… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2019)

¶71

explosion and the resultant loss to induction furnace was caused due to fall of 4.5 ton magnetic hammer upon the crucible of induction furnace, which was in operation. The magnetic hammer fell inside the furnace because its holding chains of the hoist, got released from the hooks, as it was allowed to rest on scrap protruding outside the induction furnace crucible whilst in operation. This led to impact damage top the crucible's refractory material and coils which is not covered under the fire policy. When subjected to cross examination he admitted that the surveyor who visited the site had prepared the site notice and when asked vide question No.18 whether he brought the site note he replied it was not required to be filed. When suggested that his report was based on those notes he denied by saying he also visited the site after other man's visit. After seeing the record he could not tell when did visited the site. Vide question No.24 it was suggested to him that the diameter of electro magnate is 1800mm. Mr. Gupta RW2 could not deny the same. In order to cover up the same he said because electro magnate was inside the furnace it was not required to be measured. In fact in reply to question No.22 he said diameter of electro magnate (hammer) was 4.5 to 5.0 ft and according to him induction furnace opening was about 1400mm i.e equal to 4.5 ft. Mr.Ravi Gupta contended that since hammer was 1800mm and electro magnate was 4.5 ft(1500mm) it could not have gone inside the furnace. In reply to question No.24 Mr.A.K.Gupta RW2 tried to say that hammer in this case was stuck on the mouth of the furnace. Partially it was in the mouth of furnace and partially it was tilted inside the furnace, which reply is contrary to his own report. Mr. Ravi Gupta counsel for the claimant contended that if the report of the surveyor is looked into and in particular para 5.3 wherein surveyor has stated that hammer released immediately above the furnace, fell inside the crucible and damaged the refractory mass of crucible, extensively. Therefore, the answer to question No.22 that hammer was partially on the mouth and partially tilted is contrary to his

¶74

own report. In reply to question No.25, RW2 Mr. Gupta admitted that when electro magnate fall on the crucible top, then the same would damage the top of block of white heat cement casting, top ring and refractory lining. Damage to the refractory lining would cause a direct contact of outside water cooled copper coil of crucible with the metal inside and the water got leaked. In reply to question No.27 he also admitted that inside flowing water instantaneously turn into steam producing a violent explosion. After having admitted the same he tried to say that there may be time lag to turn flowing water into steam which will cause explosion. The reason for denial according to RW2 is that damage due to collapse or release of hammer is not covered by the policy. According to him loss occurred due to collapse which subsequently cause break down of the hammer and furnace. In reply to question No.31 he stated that facts stated by him in paras 5.2 and 5.3 were based on the information given by the claimant as well as by other independent agencies which are on record. He could not deny the fact that loss was communicated to him immediately. Nor he could deny the procedure explained by the claimant which caused the explosion as admitted by him in answer to question No.25 and 27. He also could not deny loss to the spectrometer when put vide question No.409 nor denied that he was asked to visit the factory premises in order to inspect the spectrometer. He could not prove that he also visited the site at any time. He admitted that he was not concerned with the payment made to the company. In reply to question No.54 when claimant suggested the cause of damage he try to cover up by saying that after the fall of hammer there was damage to 20MT induction furnace. According to him contact of molten water cooled metal to the copper cable was consequential event. How he made this assessment has not been explained by him. His saying that he visited the site not proved, that means his report is based on the inspection done by somebody else. The person has not step into the witness box. His is only guess

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/S Synergy Steels Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons Vs Kirorimal College & Ors.

Puneeta Bhardwaj Vs Rashmi Juneja

Appolo Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rashmi Juneja & Ors.

Choco Kraft Vs Acumen Foods Inc.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/S Synergy Steels Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons Vs Kirorimal College & Ors.

Puneeta Bhardwaj Vs Rashmi Juneja

Appolo Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rashmi Juneja & Ors.

Choco Kraft Vs Acumen Foods Inc.

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

M/S. Kerala State Electronics Development Cororation Ltd. through Its Managing Director, Represente Vs M/S. Energy Efficiency Services Limited ( a Jv Company of Psus of Ministry of Power, Govt of India)

Jamia Millia Islamia Vs Airwaves Engineers Pvt.Ltd.