Skip to main content

Limitation on amendment of Statement of Claim in Arbitration

In O.M.P. (COMM) 31/2017 & I.A. 13479/2018, M/S CINEVISTAAS LTD. vs M/S PRASAR BHARTI, the Delhi High Court has held that claims which are raised at the time of invoking arbitration but are not part of Statement of Claim, are not time-barred by limitation.

The Petitioner had undertaken production of a game show titled ‘Knock Out’. After negotiations, the Respondent approved telecast of 52 episodes of the programme and the final telecast date was decided as January 28, 2001. Subsequently, television promos were aired and advertisements were also published. However, on December 27, 2000, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that the show would not be aired.

The Petitioner then sought appointment of an independent Arbitrator by filing a Section 11 petition to resolve the dispute and in May, 2004, an Arbitrator was appointed.

While the arbitral proceedings were pending, the Petitioner realised that there were substantial errors in the quantification and details of two claims. It, therefore, moved an application seeking permission to correct the said claims.

The application was dismissed in August 2009. The Arbitrator held that the changes sought to be made constituted ‘additional claims’. Since the notice invoking arbitration was issued in November 2003 and the incorporation of these additional claims was being sought in 2008, the application was barred by limitation.

The Delhi High Court held that the law relating to amendments is very clear i.e., that the Court has to be very liberal while considering amendments. This would equally apply to arbitral proceedings, which are not bound by the strict provisions of CPC and that after having noticed the fact that the additional claims now raised, were contained in the invocation letter, as also in the Section 11 petition, there was no reason why the same ought not to have been allowed.

The Court then referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania & Anr. (1981) 4 SCC 8, decided that the order of the Ld. Arbitrator clearly has a finality attached to it, in respect of the additional claims, and is, thus, held to be an award, against which a Section 34 petition is maintainable. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more