SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1623

2008(7) Supreme 750
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.K. Thakker, J.
M/s Comed Chemicals Ltd. — Appellant
versus
C.N. Ramchand — Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 17 of 2007
Decided on : 06-11-2008

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :O.P. Dhingra, Ms. Kavita Kapil and Debasis Misra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Prashant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Mayank Misra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
A Director per se cannot be said to be an employee or servant of the Company.

Headnote:(a) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 r/w section 2 (1) (f) – Agreement to render consultancy service by the one party to another is ‘commercial’ in nature and there is commercial relationship between the parties. (Para 17)

        (1994) 4 SCC 541; (1976) 4 SCC 147 – Relied upon.

        AIR 1965 Bom 114; AIR 1986 Cal 45; (1998) 92 Comp Cases 402 – Referred.

        (b) Interpretation of contract – Commercial contract must be construed broadly and liberally with a view to give efficacy to such contract rather than to invalidate it. (Para 22)

        (2008) 1 SCC 481 – Relied upon.

        (c) Companies Act 1956 – Section 2(26) – A Director is not a mere employee or servant of the Company – He is a controller of the company’s affairs. (Para 28)

        1961 AC 12; (1972) 2 SCC 696 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. The applicant M/s Comed Chemicals Ltd., in order to expand the business floated a subsidiary company in the name and style of Comed Biotech Ltd. For the said purpose, it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and appointed Dr. C.N. Ramchand (respondent herein) for the development of products in the field of bio-industries and manufacturing and marketing of such products.

        2. The respondent was appointed as Director (Technical) by the applicant Company. MoU also provided that the respondent will work full time with the Company at least for next eight years from the date of signing of the agreement.

        3. It is the allegation of the Company that the respondent did not take interest in work and failed to attend Board Meetings in spite of prior notice and information in advance.

        4. The respondent sent a Letter of Resignation on July 17, 2004. In view of the large investment by the Company, it refused to accept the resignation of the respondent.

        5. The applicant company invoked arbitration clause of the MoU; but the parties could not agree on any name.

        6. Applicant company approached the High Court to which the respondent objected on the ground of jurisdiction claiming himself to be a British national.

        7. The applicant therefore approached Supreme Court for appointment of an arbitrator.

       Finding of the Court :

        The MoU between the parties was a commercial contract.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, J. —

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) praying to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to appoint third Arbitrator as Presiding Arbitrator or to appoint Sole Arbitrator as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It is the case of the applicant that it is a Company known as M/s Comed Chemicals Ltd. registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Ashwani Kapil is the authorized signatory who has approached this Court. It is stated in the application that the Company is doing business in chemicals in the field of bio-technology. To expand the business, the Company floated a subsidiary company in the name and style of Comed Biotech Ltd. For the said purpose, it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’ for short) and appointed Dr. C.N. Ramchand (respondent herein) on September 4, 2003 for the development of products in the field of bio-industries and manufacturing and marketing of such products. After various meetings and negotiations, terms and conditions were finalized between the parties and the respondent was appointed as Director (Technical) by the applicant Company. A copy of the agreement has been annexed to the Application. MoU also provided that the respondent will work full time with the Company at least for next eight years from the date of signing of the agreement. According to the Company, it invested large amount in the new adventure and paid substantial sum as remuneration to the respondent for the work.

3. It is the allegation of the Company that the respondent did not take interest in work and failed to attend Board Meetings held in May and June, 2004 in spite of prior notice and information in advance about such meetings. A notice was issued by the Company to the respondent on July 14, 2004 asking him to remain present at the Board Meeting scheduled to be held on July 30, 2004. The respondent, however, sent a Letter of Resignation on July 17, 2004. The Company has alleged that not only the respondent wanted to quit the Company before completing the work assigned to him in violation of the agreement, but he also instigated other subordinate staff-workers to leave the organization. Resultantly, other staff members also resigned. In view of the large investment by the Company, it refused to accept the resignation of the respondent. There was correspondence and exchange of legal notices between the parties. It is, however, not necessary to enter into the details thereof in the present proceedings.

4. By a communication dated August 12, 2005, the applicant through his advocate sent a notice to the respondent for appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with Clause 12 of MoU and informed him that the applicant-Company had decided to appoint Ramesh H. Nanavati, retired District Judge as his arbitrator. The applicant called upon the respondent to state whether he was agreeable to the said name. It also stated that if he was not agreeable, he could suggest any other name and/or appoint an arbitrator for resolving the dispute failing which the applicant would be constrained to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The respondent through his advocate informed the Company on September 12, 2005 that he was not agreeable to the arbitrator suggested by the Company. He, however, suggested three names. At Sl. No. 1, there was a name of Dr. Sandeep H. Shah, President, Indian Psychiatric Association.

5. In view of non-agreement between the applicant and respondent, the Company filed Arbitration Application No. 9 of 2006 under Section 11 of the Act in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad requesting the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court to appoint an arbitrator. Notice was issued to the respondent who filed his reply. In the reply, he asserted that he is a ‘British national’ and hence any question of arbitration between the applicant-Company which is















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top