Pretext:
The Delhi High Court’s decision in M/s Seaspray Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL)[1] provides much-needed clarity on how termination clauses in COAs should be interpreted in line with the contract’s purpose and the parties’ commercial expectations.
Background of the Dispute
Seaspray Shipping entered into a COA with SAIL for the transportation of coking coal from Australia to India. SAIL was obligated to transport 2,000,000 metric tons (±5% at SAIL’s option) of bulk coking coal from Queensland, Australia, to India’s East Coast using Handymax vessels provided by Seaspray. The shipments were to be evenly distributed throughout the contract period, with parcel sizes between 45,000 to 52,000 metric tons. SAIL was obliged to ship a minimum of 1,900,000 MT and maximum of 2,100,000 MT of coal
Disputes arose between the parties due to non-supply of cargo under the COA by the SAIL. Seaspray asserted that SAIL had only transported 881,204.80 metric tons out of the required 2,000,000 metric tons (±5%) under the COA.
SAIL terminated the COA, invoking Clause 62 (default clause), claiming its broad right to end the contract. Seaspray challenged this termination, asserting that Clause 62 was not a blanket termination-for-convenience clause but was intended for default or frustration events beyond the control of either party.
The dispute was referred to arbitration under the Maritime Arbitration Rules. The Arbitral Tribunal ruled in Seaspray’s favour, finding that SAIL’s unilateral termination was invalid under Clause 62 and awarding damages for unshipped cargo.
Seaspray alleged that SAIL failed to supply the cargo despite multiple requests and SAIL instead entered the spot market for shipments that should have been delivered under the COA. Seaspray provided instances where SAIL fulfilled third-party contracts instead.
SAIL contended that clause 62 allowed SAIL to terminate the agreement without liability if the Suppliers/Charterers fail to perform its obligation. SAIL further contended that Clause 62, entitles the Suppliers/Charterers to terminate the contract without liabilities for the unsupplied quantity
___________________________________________________________________________
Relevant Clauses of the COA
Clause 62 – Default
“Should Suppliers/Charterers fail to provide materials for shipment or to ship the materials by the time or times agreed upon or should Suppliers/Charterers in any manner or otherwise fail to perform the contract or should a Receiver be appointed on its assets or make or enter into any arrangements or composition with creditors or suspend payments (or being a company should enter into liquidation either compulsory or voluntary) the Suppliers/Charterers shall be entitled to declare the contract as at an end without any liabilities on either side.”
Default Clause – Clause 62 – The Core Issue
The Tribunal read Clause 62 in the context of the entire COA, holding that:
- If there are two possible constructions of Clause 62 then the one which would give effect to all the Clauses of the Agreement must be adopted and not another which would nullify them.
- The construction sought to be canvassed by SAIL made it impossible to reconcile with its binding obligation to ship at least 1,900,000 MT of coal.
- Clause 62 of the COA should be interpreted in the context of the Agreement’s other provisions and applied only to circumstances constituting frustration of the Agreement, specifically targeting the coal supplier in Australia rather than SAIL.
- Construction sought to be canvassed by SAIL made it impossible to reconcile with its binding obligation to ship at least 1,900,000 MT of coal
SAIL challenged the award before the single judge of the Delhi High Court.
Decision of the Single Juge of the Delhi High Court.
The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court partially disagreed, holding that Clause 62 did grant SAIL termination rights, but only prospectively. The Court observed that Clause 62 of the Agreement explicitly allows SAIL to terminate the contract for convenience if the contract fails “in any manner or otherwise.
Division Bench Court’s Analysis
This interpretation of clause 62 was challenged by Seaspray in appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
The Division Bench reinstated the arbitral interpretation, noting that:
- Contextual reading of contract terms is essential; clauses must not be interpreted in isolation.
- Arbitral tribunals are the final authority on contract interpretation unless their view is perverse or implausible (following Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI and Associate Builders v. DDA).
- A purposive reading prevents Clause 62 from negating other provisions (like Clause 61 on force majeure) or permitting termination for mere commercial inconvenience.
The court further affirmed the view of the tribunal that SAIL’s termination notice dated 11.09.2012 was invalid as it did not meet the requirements of Clause 62.
Key Takeaways
- Purposive Interpretation: Clauses conferring termination rights must be harmonized with the entire contract and cannot be read to give unfettered discretion unless explicitly stated.
- Arbitral Autonomy: Courts will defer to an arbitral tribunal’s plausible construction of contract terms, even if another interpretation is possible.
- Drafting Lessons: Ambiguities in clauses like 62 can lead to disputes. Clear drafting distinguishing between “default termination” and “termination for convenience” is vital in COAs.
- Commercial Consequences: Parties cannot rely on broad, literal interpretations of termination clauses to escape performance due to market or commercial changes.
Conclusion
The default clause was meant to cover default or frustration scenarios, not commercial convenience. Clauses 61 (Force Majeure) and 62 were “exceptions” to performance, not tools for unfettered termination rights.
The judgment reinforces that default clauses (unilateral right to terminate) of a COA must be interpreted in the light of the contract’s purpose and context. It cannot serve as an escape hatch for parties seeking to withdraw from unprofitable contracts. For shipowners and charterers alike, this decision underscores the importance of precise drafting and careful invocation of default clauses.
[1] 2025 (DHC) 2238 DB
