Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction

Order Date: 01 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: M/s Ruby Chemicals (Petitioner) vs M/s Robertet SA (Respondent, formerly Charabot Group).
  • Underlying agreement dated 19 April 1995 (signed 23 April 1995) for purchase of aleuritic acid and its derivatives, containing an arbitration clause referring to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules.
  • Dispute led to a suit in the Calcutta High Court (CS No. 622/2001). Respondent filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A.P. No. 14 of 2003), allowed on 01‑12‑2003.
  • Petitioner invoked ICC arbitration on 17‑04‑2008; ICC fixed a provisional advance of USD 70,000, which was paid by the petitioner. The remaining advance of USD 305,000, the respondent’s share, remained unpaid.
  • ICC correspondence (emails dated 13‑07‑2009 and 18‑08‑2009) demanded the respondent’s share; the petitioner did not cover the remainder, resulting in withdrawal of the arbitration on 12‑02‑2010.
  • Petitioner filed an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An earlier Supreme Court order dated 24‑10‑2017 permitted continuation of the civil suit, but that order was recalled on 23‑01‑2026 for fresh hearing.
  • Respondent’s counsel, Senior Counsel Ritin Rai, argued that under ICC Article 30 the petitioner could pay the entire advance and recover later, or that the claim could be revived under Article 30(4). The Court examined the full text of Article 30, which allows a party to pay the whole advance if the other fails to do so and permits re‑introduction of claims in a later proceeding.
  • The Court noted that while the petitioner had paid the USD 70,000 provisional sum, the respondent’s failure to pay its USD 305,000 share caused the arbitration to be withdrawn. The petitioner could not realistically bear the entire cost, especially given foreign‑exchange constraints.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that referring the matter back to arbitration under Article 30(4) would be futile given the respondent’s obstinate refusal to pay its share.
  • Invoking Article 142, the Court directed:

1. The petitioner is at liberty to institute a commercial suit before a competent Commercial Court within 30 days, without recourse to pre‑litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. All other issues, including limitation, remain open for adjudication by the Commercial Court in accordance with law.

  • The Arbitration Petition No. 43 of 2017 is disposed of accordingly, and the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed.
  • The order was signed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice V. Mohana, with additional registrar signatures.

Topics: Arbitration, Commercial Litigation