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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more