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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more