Arbitration Involving Consultancy Agreement Disputes In Mining Concession Projects
1. Introduction: Consultancy Agreements in Mining Concession Projects
Mining concession projects (coal, iron ore, bauxite, limestone, etc.) involve multiple statutory approvals and technical stages. Consultants are commonly engaged for:
Geological exploration and resource estimation
Preparation of mining plans and feasibility reports
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and forest clearance support
Liaison with statutory authorities
Project management and mine development planning
Disputes arising from such consultancy agreements are frequently referred to arbitration, especially in concession-based or long-term mining arrangements.
2. Common Causes of Arbitration in Mining Consultancy Disputes
(a) Non-Approval or Rejection of Mining Plans
Employer alleges defective or non-compliant submissions
Consultant claims rejection due to policy changes or authority discretion
(b) Delay in Statutory Clearances
Delay in EC, FC, or mining lease approvals
Dispute whether consultant’s role was advisory or outcome-based
(c) Fee Disputes
Milestone-based payments withheld
Disagreement on “success fee” or conditional remuneration
(d) Scope Creep and Additional Services
Employer demands extended liaison or revised plans without extra payment
(e) Termination of Consultancy
Employer alleges poor performance
Consultant alleges wrongful termination
3. Key Legal Issues Examined by Arbitrators
Nature of Obligation – “best efforts” vs “guaranteed outcome”
Scope of Services as defined in the agreement
Impact of Regulatory Changes during the consultancy period
Causation between consultant’s work and project failure
Entitlement to Fees despite non-grant of concession
4. Governing Legal Principles Applied in Arbitration
(i) Consultant Is Not an Insurer of Approvals
Unless expressly agreed, consultants are required to exercise reasonable skill and care, not guarantee regulatory approvals.
(ii) Effect of Statutory Regime Changes
Mining projects are heavily policy-driven; supervening events may excuse performance.
(iii) Milestone-Based Payment Clauses
Completion of contractual deliverables, not project success, governs payment unless clearly linked.
(iv) Limited Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards
Courts do not interfere with arbitral appreciation of technical consultancy obligations.
5. Important Case Laws (At Least 6)
1. McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Arbitrators are the final judges of facts and technical matters, including evaluation of professional services.
Relevance:
Applied where arbitrator determines whether mining consultancy deliverables met contractual standards.
2. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Interpretation of consultancy agreement terms lies within the arbitrator’s domain.
Relevance:
Relevant to disputes on scope of mining advisory services and entitlement to fees.
3. ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Patent illegality includes violation of express contractual provisions.
Relevance:
Invoked when consultant claims fees despite failure to deliver mandatory mining plan components.
4. Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
An award can be interfered with only if it shocks the conscience or violates fundamental policy.
Relevance:
Protects awards dealing with expert evidence on mining feasibility and regulatory compliance.
5. Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Even an erroneous interpretation of contract is not a ground for setting aside an award unless perversity is shown.
Relevance:
Applied where arbitrator adopts one plausible interpretation of consultancy obligations.
6. Nabha Power Ltd. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Contracts must be interpreted based on business efficacy and surrounding circumstances.
Relevance:
Used to assess implied obligations in long-term mining consultancy arrangements.
7. Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
Supreme Court of India
Principle:
Change in law can excuse performance where it fundamentally alters contractual assumptions.
Relevance:
Applied in mining consultancy disputes affected by amendments in mining or environmental regulations.
6. Typical Arbitral Findings in Mining Consultancy Disputes
Arbitral tribunals commonly hold:
Consultant entitled to fees if deliverables were submitted in accordance with prevailing laws
Employer cannot withhold payment merely because authorities rejected applications
Termination unjustified if consultant exercised reasonable skill and diligence
Consultant not liable for delays caused by governmental or policy actions
Damages awarded may include:
Unpaid professional fees
Costs incurred in statutory submissions
Loss of profit (in limited cases)
7. Practical Contractual Lessons
Clearly define scope vs outcome-based obligations
Allocate risk for regulatory approvals
Provide for change-in-law adjustments
Define milestones with objective deliverables
Preserve documentary evidence of submissions and correspondence
8. Conclusion
Arbitration in mining consultancy disputes is driven by:
Contractual allocation of risk
Professional standards of care
Regulatory uncertainty inherent in mining concessions
Indian courts consistently uphold arbitral awards where consultants have acted with reasonable professional competence, even if the mining concession ultimately fails.
RELATED Blog
comments