Skip to main content

For arbitration, there has to be a specific allegation about existence of an arbitration agreement by one party and non denial thereof by other party

In MS. G. KAPOOR vs M/S REACON ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., before the Delhi High Court in ARB.P. 131/2019, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement for carrying out internal electrical works for renovation and expansion of ESIC Hospital, Okhla Project. The main contract was between ESIC and TCIL. A further sub-contract was between the respondent and TCIL. Due to payment dispute, the petitioner applied for appointment of arbitrator arguing that clause 2 of the LOI based on which the respondent had awarded contract to the petitioner clearly states that the scope of work, commercial and technical terms and conditions including payment terms of contract between the petitioner and the respondent is on back-to-back basis with the main contract between the ESIC and TCIL and as such all the terms and conditions will apply to the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent including the arbitration clause.

The respondent argued that any incorporation of an arbitration clause has to be by way of a specific reference to the arbitration clause. In other words, there has to be a specific incorporation of the arbitration clause and in the absence of such clause having been incorporated in the LOI, it cannot be said an arbitration clause / agreement binds the parties herein.

The High Court observed that the said clause 2 does mention 'back to back basis' and that the words ''back-to-back basis‟ has some meaning / relevance. The words ''back-to-back‟ means “consecutive” as per the Cambridge Guide (Ref: Cambridge Guide to English Usage), Cambridge University Press, South Asian Edition, 2004.

Further, in reply dated December 19, 2016 to the notice of the petitioner, the respondent had not disputed the existence of the arbitration clause between them. The relevant portion of which has been reproduced above does reveal that the respondent intended to suggest its own list of Arbitrators if at all dispute is relegated for arbitration. The words “if at all the dispute is relegated for arbitration” has to be read in the context that the respondent disputed the claim raised by the petitioner in its notice but not their arbitrability.

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N. Prasad, Hitek Industries (Bihar) Ltd. v. Monnet Finance Ltd. and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 320, the High Court held that it is clear, that to constitute an arbitration agreement under Section 7(4)(c) of the Act, there is a statement of claim containing a specific allegation about the existence of an arbitration agreement by the petitioner and non denial thereof by the other party. The said requirement is fulfilled in this case, inasmuch as the respondent did not dispute the existence of an arbitration clause.

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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more