Skip to main content

Conditionality present in arbitration clause must be interpreted strictly

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hyundai Engineering and Construction, the insurance policy in clause 7 stipulated arbitration in case of dispute but subject to acceptance of the liability by the insurer. When the claim was filed, the surveyor appointed by the insurer found the accident to be entirely due to the fault of the insured and under such circumstances the loss not being payable under the policy, the insurer by letter categorically repudiated the claim in its entirety.

Subsequently the insured went to the High Court for appointment of arbitrator claiming dispute which was resisted by the insurer that the matter cannot be arbitrated. The High Court agreeing with allowed the application while referring to judgments in Duro Felguera, S.A. Vs. Gangavaram Port Limited, and  Jumbo Bags Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

On appeal the Supreme Court found that the judgements referred to by the High Court are 2 judge benches while the more relevant judgments being very similar to the present case is the 3 judges bench in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Narbheram Power and Steel Private Limited which in turn refers to another 3 judges bench in Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maharaj Singh and Anr. The Supreme Court held that it has been clearly decided through the said judgments that arbitration clause has to be interpreted strictly. Clause 7 has a clear conditionality. Th arbitration clause in Clause 7 will get activated or kindled only if the dispute between the parties is limited to the quantum to be paid under the policy. The liability should be unequivocally admitted by the insurer.  To put it differently, an arbitration clause would enliven or invigorate only if the insurer admits or accepts its liability under or in respect of the concerned policy.
As the appellants completely denied their liability and repudiated the claim of the JV (respondent Nos.1 & 2) for the reasons mentioned in the communication. The reasons are specific. No plea was raised by the respondents that the policy or the said clause 7 was void. It must be held that the dispute in question is non-arbitrable and respondent Nos.1 & 2 ought to have resorted to the remedy of a suit.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more