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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...