BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED vs XIAMEN LONGKING BULK MATERIAL SCIENCE AND ENGG. CO. LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 21.05.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 21 .08.2025 + O.M.P. (COMM) 529/2020 & I.A. 10230/2020 BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED (BHEL) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Mr. Vinay Kumar & Mr. Sachin Chaudhary, Advs. versus XIAMEN LONGKING BULK MATERIAL SCIENCE & ENGG. CO. LTD. .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity “the Act”) challenging the Arbitral Award dated 03.07.2020 passed by the learned arbitrator in the arbitration matter titled as “Xiamen Longking Bulk Material Science & Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL)”. Digitally Signed By:DEEPANSHU MALASI _______________________________________________________________________________________ Signing Date:21.08.2025 O.M.P. (COMM) 529/2020 Page 1 of 30 14:46:24 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that the petitioner is a public sector undertaking and the respondent is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of the People’s Republic of China. 3. On 17.07.2015, the petitioner floated a tender and the respondent participated in the same. 4. As part of the bidding process, on 25.04.2016, the respondent had submitted a Project Execution Methodology (for brevity “the PEM”), in which the respondent assured the petitioner that it could supply the equipment and for local supplies, it stated it would either open an office in India or partner with an Indian firm to handle supply, erection and commissioning of the Mill Reject System (for brevity “the MRS”). The two salient conditions of Clause 1 of the PEM were that the respondent will set up a local office