Supreme Court Remits Long‑Running Port Tariff Dispute to TAMP, Sets Aside Arbitral and Court Orders

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal heard appeals by Paradip Port Authority and the Board of Trustees of Paradip Port challenging a common High Court order that had upheld an arbitral award and related appellate decisions on revision of tariff for a captive fertilizer berth. The appeals arose from disputes over unilateral tariff revisions notified in 1993 and subsequent tariff fixation by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) for later years.

The Court allowed the appeals in part and remitted the matters to the expert tariff regulator. It set aside the arbitrator’s award dated 27.12.2002, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19.10.2009, and the High Court order of 11.01.2023 insofar as they declined to refer the tariff revision issues to the competent expert authority. The Court directed that the dispute over revision of tariff for the period October 1993 to 31.03.1999 be adjudicated afresh by TAMP, and it set aside the TAMP order and the High Court’s endorsement with respect to tariff fixation for subsequent periods (01.04.1999 onwards), remitting those issues to TAMP as well. The Court emphasised that parties must be given an opportunity of hearing and that TAMP should consider all issues including limitation. The Court also recommended constitution of a specialised expert appellate body to hear appeals against adjudicatory board/TAMP orders.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background

The dispute arose from a bilateral agreement dated 03.08.1985 under which Paradip Port Trust (now Paradip Port Authority) granted Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. exclusive use of a captive “fertilizer berth” and prescribed tariff in an attached schedule, while stating that “the rates now charged can be suitably enhanced at such intervals as would be mutually agreed upon by the parties from time to time.” Clause 19 provided that the respondent was to be “subjected to the application of all relevant laws, rules and regulations” of the Port Trust. In 1993 the Port issued Notification No.1344 revising scales of rates; Paradeep Phosphates paid the revised charges for a period but later challenged the unilateral enhancement in a civil suit filed in 2000. The parties entered an in‑house arbitration agreement (10.08.2001) designed for public sector disputes; an arbitrator awarded in December 2002 that the Port should refund amounts charged by way of unilateral enhancement from October 1993 till 31.03.1999, and left the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.10.2001 to be decided by TAMP, which had come into being on 01.04.1999.

The Port’s appeal against the award was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 19.10.2009; the High Court later dismissed writ petitions challenging those orders by a common judgment dated 11.01.2023. The Port and Board of Trustees approached the Supreme Court. On review of the record the Supreme Court found that the arbitrator and the Appellate Authority had not properly examined the factual and technical matters relevant to tariff revision and that the High Court had erred in treating contractual clauses in isolation; the Court quoted the contract provision that “the entire agreement has to be read as a whole” and noted that “no adjudicatory board has been constituted under the 2021 Act, hence, it is the TAMP which has jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue.” The Court directed that all issues, including limitation, be considered afresh by TAMP and ordered that parties be afforded due opportunity of hearing. The Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice to examine the recommendation regarding creation of an expert appellate body.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.10542 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9751 of 2023) & CIVIL APPEAL NO.10543 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9870 of 2023) Case Title: Paradip Port Authority v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd.; Board of Trustees of Paradip Port v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. and Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shyam Diwan, Senior Counsel