Untitled Page

Judgments

Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Services Limited and Another vs Irish Grover [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]

Hcl Infosystems Limited vs Governmet of Nct Delhi [DELHI HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]

Board of Trustees for Port of Kolkata vs Haldia Bulk Terminals Private Limited [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]

Northern Coalfields Limited vs Aluminium Industries Limited [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 13 May 2013]

Monnalisa S. p. A vs Ashwani Kumar Chawla and another [DELHI HIGH COURT, 13 May 2013]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 9 - Trade Marks Act, 1999, s. 103 - Arbitration clause - failure to mention in subsequent agreement - Effect - In year 2009 respondent contacted petitioner for obtaining licence to sell readymade garments for kids in India using petitioner's trademarks along with their labels, tags and packaging - Petitioner by way of specific Licence Agreement dt.27-8-2009 granted non-transferrable, exclusive and sole licence to respondents to develop, manufacture, design, market and sell readymade garments (kidswear clothing) using their trademarks - Respondents violated various clauses of agreement dt.27-8-2009 including one regarding payment of royalty to petitioner - Various communications were exchanged between parties but respondents did not take any corrective measures to resolve disputes - During another meeting parties entered into another agreement dt.17-11-2011 to revise business relations - It was case of petitioner that respondents had admitted their liability of 3,49,500 Euros but that payment was not made - On 15-6-2012 petitioner terminated agreement w.e.f. September, 2011 as mutually agreed upon between parties during meeting held in Italy in April, 2011 - After termination of agreement with petitioner, respondents were selling goods of petitioner after importing them but by falsely printing on labels and product tags 'Made in India' and 'Manufactured and Marketed by 'C' Retail Limited' after cutting inner labels of clothing wherein declaration 'Made in Italy' was printed which could not be done as per understanding reached in April, 2011 - Petitioner contended that above said activities of respondents tantamount to infringement of its trade mark but also criminal offence u/s. 103 of 1999 Act - On 27-7-2012 respondents agreed to pay 60,000 Euros in full and final settlement of petitioner's dues of 3,49,500 Euros but petitioner refused to accept said offer - Hence instant petition - Petitioner contended that after termination of agreement between parties respondents were left with no right to sell garments by using petitioner's trademarks and to run any retail outlet in the name of 'M' for selling garments using mark 'M' - Held, prima facie, petitioner was not entitled to get any relief by way of this petition since, the same did not appear to be even maintainable - Original agreement dt.27-8-2009 came to be replaced by new agreement/understanding between parties - It was not the case of petitioner that at that time it was also agreed that terms and conditions incorporated in agreement dt.27-8-2009 should also continue to be binding on parties - Even after 22-4-2011 also fresh arrangements were arrived at between parties - Thus, on a prima facie view of matter original agreement between parties which had an arbitration clause ceased to exist in April, 2011 and consequently petitioner could not invoke s. 9 of 1996 Act - Petition dismissed.

Siddhivinayak Realties Private Limited, Mumbai vs (1) V. Hotels Limited, Mumbai; (2) Tulip Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai; (3) Tulip Star Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai; (4) Dr. Ajit Kerkar, Representing Promoters and Directors of Tulip Hospitality Services Limited [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 10 May 2013]

Antrix Corporation Limited vs Devas Multimedia Private Limited [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 10 May 2013]

Sanjeev Goyal and others vs Rajiv Goyal and others [DELHI HIGH COURT, 10 May 2013]
Arbitration & ADR - Corporate - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ss. 9, 17, 34 - Memorandum of family settlement - Arbitration proceedings - Propriety - During course of hearings of Company Petitions, the Company Law Board directed petitioners and respondents to amicably resolve their disputes - Thus, parties entered into Memorandum of Family Settlements (MOFS) - Main inter-se disputes between respondents no. 6 to 14 and 15 to 17 have already been settled under MOFS and substantial disputes between respondent nos. 1 to 5 and respondent nos.6 to 14 were also resolved - However, disputes for compliance of terms and conditions of MOFS between petitioners and respondents were still to be resolved with regard to compliances of their respective obligations as per final settlement - During pendency, 3 applications were also filed by respondent nos. 1 to 5 who sought directions to permit them to give effect to resolution dt.19-10-2011 - Hence, instant petition - Held, under scheme of s. 9 of the Act, it was not necessary for Court to decide all disputes raised by parties which were even not mentioned in prayer clause - Court while considering petition u/s. 9 of the Act for interim protection had to strike balance between parties in order to preserve property in interest of parties which were of urgent in nature, till same were decided by Arbitrator on merit after hearing parties - Thus, at instant stage, HC was inclined to decide issues which were urgent, rest of reliefs and disputes raised by parties had to be considered by Arbitrator who was appointed by parties themselves -Respondent nos. 1 to 5 were allowed to give effect to resolution if passed in Extraordinary General Meeting and with regard to other reliefs sought by said respondents same were to be considered before Arbitrator who would decide same as per their own merits after hearing parties - Main petition was also disposed of, with liberty to seek other prayer if available in law by moving interim application u/s. 17 of the Act before Arbitrator who would consider same as per their own merits - Petition filed by same petitioners against respondents as well as respondent no. 18 sought termination of mandate of sole Arbitrator, there were no pleadings or positive statement on behalf either of parties to effect that till March, 2012 any party accepted him as Arbitrator - Prior to that, in fact, respondent no. 18 was acting as mediator with regard to disputes relating to meaning, interpretation and implementation of mutual settlement - Thus, all acts done by respondent no. 18 prior to raising their disputes as mediator and not being Arbitrator - With regard to allegations made by petitioners, about biasness, personal involvement, vengeance towards petitioners, were concerned, said challenge was possible in form of objections to final award u/s. 34 of the Act in view of settled proposition of law - It was admitted case of petitioners that Arbitration proceedings had commenced after filing of instant petitions and petition under said facts and circumstances was not maintainable - Petition dismissed.

WSP Engineering Services Limited vs (1) R. C. Panwar; (2) WSP Engineering Services Limited [DELHI HIGH COURT, 10 May 2013]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ss. 11(5) & 11(6) - Lease agreement - Appointment of Arbitrator - Propriety - Petitioner entered into lease agreement with respondent - Petitioner by way of letter dt.29-2-2012 conveyed to respondent its intention to vacate premises and had terminated all Lease Deeds and promised to hand over vacant possession of leased premises to respondent and requested to release security deposits which includes security deposits of total 5 premises - However, respondent failed to release security deposits as alleged by petitioner and entered into a MOU with petitioner in respect of issues related to termination of all Lease Deeds - However, petitioner invoked arbitration and proposed names of Arbitrators for adjudication between parties - Respondent failed to nominate Arbitrator, petitioner filed instant petitions seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of ss. 11(5) and 11(6) of the Act - Whether MOU was given a go by and parties arrived at some mutual settlement whereby parties were at liberty to revert to original arbitration agreement - Held, no doubt, once arbitration agreement was given a go by and parties arrived at a mutual settlement, terms of which were acted upon, arbitration agreement would be deemed to have abrogated, abandoned or waived by parties, the arbitration agreement stood discharged and under those circumstances, arbitration provisions could not be invoked by parties as the disputes and differences between parties would merge into the new settlement whereby parties could not revert back to original arbitration agreement - In instant case, it was evident that MOU had clear reference to Lease Deeds entered into between the parties for leasing out premises in question - In case, MOU was read in a meaningful manner, it indicated the intention of respondent to take back leased property on 31-5-2012 and accepted termination of Lease Deeds entered into between parties - It was agreed by respondent in MOU that security deposits lying with respondent in respect of Lease Deeds should be paid to petitioner within 15 days of receiving the vacant physical possession of leased premises - Thus, an arbitration clause which contained in Lease Deeds would get attracted into the MOU by reference - MOU clearly indicated the intention of parties to continue and incorporate or compliance with the terms and conditions of Lease Deeds - The same was capable of application in respect of disputes under the contract - There was a specific reference of Lease Deeds in MOU which provided the performance of contracts which were entered into between parties by virtue of 5 Lease Deeds containing the terms and conditions relating to performance in MOU and there was no compliance thereof by respondent who might have its own reason not to comply with the same which would be considered by sole Arbitrator at its own merit - Thus, it was apparent that arbitration clause of Lease Deeds would apply - Respondent had lost his right not to appoint an Arbitrator within 30 days from the receipt of rejoinder-cum-notice dt.9-8-2012, petitioner was entitled for relief of appointment of an independent sole Arbitrator - Petitions allowed.

Highways Authority of India vs Somdutt Builders-NCC(JV) [DELHI HIGH COURT, 10 May 2013]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 34 - Arbitral award - Validity - Respondent signed a contract with the petitioner to execute the project of four-laning and strengthening of existing two-lane section between 110 km to 140 km on NH-2 in the State of Bihar - Dispute arose between parties, which was referred to Dispute Review Board (DRB) by the respondent - DRB upheld the claim of respondent - Being aggrieved by the recommendation of the DRB, the petitioner invoked the arbitration - Arbitral Tribunal was constituted - By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal upheld (a) the recommendation of the DRB in the dispute regarding non-payment of earth-work in embankment quantity in the 150 mm thick Clearing and Grubbing portion; and (b) the counter claim of the respondent regarding the non-payment of removal of tree stumps and roots - Hence, instant petition - Whether arbitral award was valid - Held, under the scheme of the Act, an award could be challenged only on limited grounds mentioned in s. 34(2) of the Act - In the instant case, petitioner had not pleaded any of the grounds required to be established, u/s. 34(2) of the Act, for setting aside an award, namely, incapacity, invalidity of arbitration agreement, failure of notice of arbitration proceedings, that the award deals with a dispute which was not submitted to the arbitration proceedings, non-arbitrability of the dispute itself and that the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal was not in accordance with the law - Grounds of misconduct and violation of public policy made in the objection were not clear in nature and the petitioner failed to furnish sufficient evidence in this regard - Further, impugned award had been passed in favour of the respondent, consisting of members with technical expertise and technical acumen to interpret the contract and the technical specification under which the dispute had arisen - Objections filed by petitioner were not sustainable and the same were dismissed - Arbitral award upheld - Petitions dismissed.

Schlumberger Asia Services Limited vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 09 May 2013]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s.11(6) - Appointment of arbitrator - After end of contract - Entitled to - Petition was filed u/s. 11(6) of Act to sought direction from HC for appointment of the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent and also appointment of third Arbitrator (Presiding Arbitrator) in Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes arises between the parties - Whether defence of petitioner that notices of arbitration was sent from time to time to respondent for invoking arbitration was sustainable - Held, there was a dispute as to whether the repeated notices sent by the petitioner to the respondents were ever received - There were further disputes (even if the notices were received by respondent) as to whether they were actually received in the correct section of respondent - These were matters of evidence which were normally best left to be decided by Tribunal - It would be appropriate for HC to constitute the entire Tribunal in exercise of my powers u/s. 11(6) of Act - Petition allowed.

Gurmeet Earthmovers Company Builders and Govt. Contractor vs National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited and others [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 09 May 2013]

Yusufkhan Fakhrookhan Tadvi vs Konkan Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited and others [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 07 May 2013]

Deioners vs West Central Railway Kota [DELHI HIGH COURT, 07 May 2013]

(1) Kapil Chopra (Partner Skn) and others; (2) Kapil Chopra and others vs (1) Satish Chopra (Partner Skn) and others; (2) Satish Chopra and others [DELHI HIGH COURT, 06 May 2013]

Praxair India Private Limited, Bangalore vs Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited, Bangalore [KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, 03 May 2013]

Dr. Dalvi Ali Abdul Quadar vs Kokan Mercantile Co-op. Bank Limited and others [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 03 May 2013]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, s. 84 - Arbitral award - Sustainability - Petitioner was member of respondent/Bank, since 1981 and was actively participated in affairs of Bank - Petitioner was, at relevant time, one of the Director of 'R' company and had stood surety for obtaining loan from Bank - There were defaults - It was settled by compromise by waiving off interest of Rs.74.87 Lacs - Bank issued no dues certificate dt.15-1-2009 certifying that petitioner had no dues payable in personal capacity and also in respect of Company - Petitioner asked for details of newly admitted members of Bank - Petitioner raised various objection to enhancement of requirement of minimum shares for new membership, from 4 shares to 200 shares - Instead of replying it, respondent's issued impugned letter dt.1-10-2012 - Legal notice was issued by petitioner to withdraw action - Ultimately, case was filed - Arbitrator dismissed dispute application with costs - Considering reasons so given and effect of impugned letter as well as order passed by arbitrator, petitioner was expelled from membership of Bank - Hence instant petition - Petitioner contended that arbitrator ought to have considered aspect of principle of natural justice fair-play and equality as contemplated under 1996 Act - Held, arbitrator erred in law by holding that 'it was case of removal of membership as a consequence of adjustment of share amount to loan account of defaulter loanee more so settlement with its known consequence were proposed by loanee himself ' - Petitioner being member and/or director of Company that itself could not be the reason that Board of Directors/members were permitted to take this action without following due procedure of law - This action was nothing but giving premium to respondents for their own wrong, which resulted into termination of membership of petitioner - Therefore, action of removal of membership of petitioner was against provisions of law, whole award was illegal and contrary to law - Impugned award was quashed and set aside - Order accordingly.

SBPL Infrastructure Limited vs India Media Services Private Limited [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 03 May 2013]
Arbitration & ADR - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 9 - Specific Relief Act, 1963, s. 36 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 39 - Lack of jurisdiction - Interim relief - Grant of - It was case of petitioner that 'M' paid sums on behalf of 'E' and in view of such payment 'E' agreed to transfer to it its property at 'H' - Respondent filed suit for specific performance against 'E' and consent decree was passed on 17-3-2004 - In 2011 property was conveyed to respondent - Petitioner had financed payment to respondent to enable payment by it on behalf of 'E' - Property which was to come to respondent from 'E' was to be transferred under nomination agreement dt.5-12-2005 to petitioner - In proceedings filed before SC on 14-3-2011, order was passed directing parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of 'H' property - Arbitration clause was accepted by all parties as respondent was claimant in arbitration proceedings - Arbitration proceedings were initiated, respondent/claimant contended that said agreement stood frustrated as arbitration proceedings was not concluded within 60 days from the date of entering into reference - Arbitrator terminated proceedings on 18-1-2012 due to efflux of time - Hence instant application - Respondent contended that agreement between parties was dt.5-12-2005 - Suit filed by respondent against 'E' was decreed and 'E' adjusted monies by transfer of 'H' property to respondent - This transfer though effected no possession of 'H” property was given to respondent - As per order dt.14-3-2011 parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession of 'H' property - On 28-11-2007 agreement was sought to be cancelled and said cancellation was subject matter of dispute before Arbitrator - Agreement was cancelled in 2007 and since November, 2007 till November, 2011 no step was taken to set-aside cancellation - No Court proceedings were initiated nor was there any interim order- Held, on reading of agreement dt.5-12-2005 property which was subject-matter of dispute was in 'H', i.e. outside territorial jurisdiction of instant Court - Protection of such property was sought and instant Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain suit or any proceedings in which possession of such immovable property was sought - In case no possession was sought and relief claimed was simply for enforcement of agreement for sale, then suit could be entertained even if property was outside territorial jurisdiction of instant Court but this was not so in instant case - Counter claim was made in counter statement filed by petitioner for specific performance of agreement dt.5-12-2005 and one of the modes mentioned was by handing over vacant possession and execution of necessary documents to ensure peaceful possession - This would in case of suit render it to be a 'suit for land' - Scope of s. 9 of 1996 Act was in pari materia with provisions of O. 39 of CPC and s. 36 of 1963 Act and any relief granted thereunder was discretionary in nature - As main relief could not have been granted in suit filed, grant of interim relief could not be entertained far less granted as held in Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited and Others, 1983 Indlaw SC 223 - As instant Court would otherwise had no jurisdiction in respect of subject-matter, ouster of 'H' Court could not be implied - Application dismissed.

Bhupinder Singh Machre and another vs Vivek Varma and others [DELHI HIGH COURT, 03 May 2013]

Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs Snehadeep Structures Private Limited, Nagpur [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 03 May 2013]

Naresh Kumar Lamba vs Ashok Kumar Lamba and others [DELHI HIGH COURT, 02 May 2013]

Suresh Khanna vs O. P. Suri Memorial Educational Society [DELHI HIGH COURT, 02 May 2013]

Uma Kapoor and another vs Kapil Aggarwal [DELHI HIGH COURT, 02 May 2013]

(1) Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (previously known as Indiabulls Financial Services Limited), Represented by its Authorized Representative R. Inbasekaran, New Delhi; (2) Indiabulls Securities Limited, Gurgaon; (3) A. Indira Anand; (4) K. Bharathi vs (1) Green Gardens Private Limited, Chennai; (2) Gemini Arts Private Limited, Chennai; (3) Gemini Foundation Private Limited, Chennai; (4) A. Ravishankar Prasad; (5) A. Manohar Prasad; (6) AIndira Anand; (7) K. Bharathi; (8) Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, New Delhi; (9) P. K. Balasubramaniyan; (10) Indiabulls Securities Limited, Chennai; (11) Manoharamma Hotels and Investments Private Limited, Chennai; (12) Positive Housing Private Limited, Chennai; (13) A. Indira Anand; (14) K. Bharathi [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Apr 2013]

Search for Relevant Judgments

Search by Keywords	x