ECGC LIMITED vs BACO METALLIC INDUSTRIES

Judgment text excerpt

CARBPL.2.2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2025 ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 17316 OF 2023 IN COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2025 ECGC Limited ...Petitioner Versus Baco Metallic Industries ...Respondent Mr. Nirman Sharma a/w Mr. Roop Basu and Ms. Heenal Wadhwa i/b The Law Point for the Petitioner. Mr. Ankit Lohia a/w Mr. Udit Gupta and Mr. Harsh Kesharia for the Respondent. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. RESERVED ON : MARCH 5, 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 15, 2025. JUDGEMENT: Context and Factual Background: 1. This Petition is a challenge mounted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ the Act”) challenging an arbitral award dated March 28, 2023 (“Impugned Award”) on the premise that the findings in the Impugned Award are contrary to the Digitally terms of the contract; contrary to the fundamental principles of signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR Date: 2025.10.15 evidence; and contrary to fundamental principles of insurance law. 12:21:16 +0530 Page 1 of 17 OCTOBER 15, 2025 Aarti Palkar CARBPL.2.2025.doc 2. The Petitioner, ECGC Ltd. (“ECGC”) issued a shipment comprehensive risk policy (“SCR Policy”) to the Respondent, Baco Metallic Industries (“Baco”) for the period from October 14, 2016 to October 13, 2017 (“Policy Period”). In terms of the policy, Baco was to apply for a “credit limit” approval before making a shipment of leather footwear manufactured by Baco, to an Italian buyer PM Trade SRL (“Buyer”). Baco effected shipments during the Policy Period. The Buyer raised disputes over quality of the products supplied. Baco engaged with the Buyer and provided discounts on the amounts payable by the Buyer and agreed to pay f