Skip to main content

Disputes over fraud can be arbitrated, says Supreme Court

 Issues related to alleged fraud in business deals can be matter for arbitration, the Supreme Court has ruled, while referring a dispute between Swiss Timing and the organising committee of the 2010 Commonwealth Games over unpaid fees to an arbitral panel. The committee had withheld a part of payment due to the Swiss company after accusing it of obtaining the contract to provide timing, score and result systems for the games fraudulently in connivance with organising committee head Suresh Kalmadi.

Kalmadi, who is facing criminal cases along with some company officials over alleged irregularities, and Swiss Timing had denied any wrongdoing. Following the dispute, the company invoked the arbitration clause in the contract. It approached the Supreme Court after the committee refused to agree to arbitration. Swiss Timing also sought court intervention to set up an arbitral panel and named former Supreme Court judge SN Variava its nominee.

Justice SS Nijjar, who considered the company's petition, named Justices BP Singh and Kuldip Singh, both former judges of the top court, to the panel. Under the contract, the total payment to Swiss Timing was estimated at 24.99 million Swiss francs (about Rs 165 crore at current exchange rate). Of that, 5% was to be paid after the Commonwealth Games got over.

Swiss Timing sent an invoice of about 1.25 million francs to the committee on October 27, 2010. Neither that, nor another Rs 15 lakh it had deposited with the committee as earnest money, was paid by the committee, the company had said. In February 2011, the committee issued a statement saying that part payments to nine foreign vendors, including Swiss Timing, had been withheld for "nonperformance of contract".

The committee cited the cases against Kalmadi - under charges of cheating, criminal conspiracy to cheat and corruption - for the nonpayment and had accused some Swiss Timing executives of colluding with him. It claimed that Swiss Timing was liable to reimburse the payments already made, while saying that there was no basis to invoke arbitration.

The organising committee had also urged the court not to allow arbitration while the criminal case was underway. On the allegations against the company, which is accused of overbilling and manipulating the contract, Justice Nijjar said both these issues can be taken care of by arbitration.

Article referred: http://www.samachar.com/Disputes-over-fraud-can-be-arbitrated-says-SC-of4eK8dijab.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil