Skip to main content

Agreement where only one party can call for arbitrator is not an arbitration clause

In South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs SMS AAMW Tollways Private Ltd., the Appellant-South Delhi Municipal Corporation challenged before the Supreme Court, the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court allowing the Petition filed by the Respondent-SMS AAMW Tollway Private Ltd.  under Section 11(6) of the ArbitrationAct after the initial appeal for arbitration had been rejected by the Appellant on the ground that no arbitration clause existed in the agreement between the parties. The Respondent had relied on Clause 16.3 of the agreement while filling the arbitration petition.

The Supreme Court found that the clause 16 provided for the resolution of disputes at two stages. If a case arises wherein a contractor finds that if the work demanded is outside the scope of the agreement or feels the need to dispute any decision of the competent officer or if any record created by him is unacceptable, he may request the competent officer to decide its representation or give instructions. If the competent officer fails to decide within 30 days or if the contractor is dissatisfied with his decision, the contractor may, within 15 days from receipt of the decision by the competent officer, file an appeal to the Commissioner, SDMC.

The Supreme Court allowing the appeal and referring to K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi held that arbitration has always been understood to mean the process by which a dispute is resolved by an arbitrator chosen or acceptable to both sides under an arbitration agreement between the two parties. In the present case, under Clause 16 of the Agreement only the party dissatisfied by the order of the Competent Officer can approach the Commissioner. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that the proceedings before the Commissioner constitutes as an arbitration.

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