Skip to main content

Parties should adhere to clauses in the arbitration agreement

In MOTHER BOON FOODS PVT LTD vs MINDSCAPE ONE MARKETING PVT LTD, when the dispute between the parties could not be resolved, the matter was taken to arbitration. The Respondent constituted a three member tribunal, which issued notices to the parties. The Petitioner had at the earliest instant the sent a letter challenging the constitution of tribunal and the Petitioner did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. The tribunal adjourned the matter and issued notices to the Petitioner. Despite the same, the Petitioner did not appear. Arbitration proceedings were, accordingly, closed and the impugned award was passed.

The Submission of the Petitioner before the Delhi High Court was that as per the clause in the agreement, the Respondent was to appoint a Sole Arbitrator. A three member tribunal, fully chosen by the Respondent is, therefore, contrary to the agreement between the parties and the provisions of the Act. Hence the tribunal’s constitution being contrary to the agreement, the award passed is not sustainable.

The Delhi High Court decided that the arbitration clause reveals that the same contemplated the appointment, only of a Sole Arbitrator, by the Respondent. It is indeed strange as to how a three member tribunal came to be constituted by the Respondent. The Respondent appears to have “played safe” in the words of the learned counsel for the Respondent. There is, however, nothing on record to show that the Petitioner indeed demanded for constitution of a three member tribunal. It is nigh possible that the Respondent decided to adopt a fair attitude by appointing a three member tribunal, however, if a three member tribunal had to be appointed, then the same ought to have been done with the consent of the Petitioner and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The arbitration agreement, as per the 1996 Act, has to be in writing and since the arbitration clause, which is a part of the contract, was in writing, the same could not have been superseded by any oral demand or agreement. The Petitioner may have been clever in orally demanding a three member tribunal but it is clear that the procedure adopted by the Respondent is impermissible.

The proverb, “better safe than sorry”, cannot be of universal application as the facts in the present case would show. The safe procedure for parties to an arbitration agreement is to actually adhere to the stipulation in the arbitration clause and not attempt anything which the parties may perceive to be safer.

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more