Skip to main content

SC resolves arbitration dilemma

The Supreme Court ruled last week that if an arbitration appeal can be filed in a district court or a high court, the choice under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has to be exercised in favour of the high court. Usually, the court where the appeal was filed first will have the jurisdiction, according to the Act. But this suit raised a peculiar problem. In this case, chief engineer vs Atlanta Ltd, both the parties were dissatisfied with the arbitral award. The chief engineer of the Maharashtra public works department, who was asked to pay Rs 58 crore plus interest at the rate of 20 per cent by the arbitrator, moved the appeal before the Thane district court because a bypass was to be built in that district. Builder Atlanta, equally dissatisfied with the award, moved the Bombay High Court on the same day, creating a jurisdictional conundrum as both the appeals were filed on the same day, in different courts. Two courts cannot deal with the same award. This situation has not been contemplated in the Act. Atlanta moved the high court for transferring the Thane appeal to the high court. It ruled in favour of Atlanta. The state appealed to the Supreme Court. It upheld the high court view and ruled in favour of the jurisdiction of the high court interpreting Section 2 (1)(e) of the Act.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/sc-resolves-arbitration-dilemma-114011900826_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more