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

2015 Supreme(SC) 1002

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, J.
SANGHI BROTHERS (INDORE) PVT. LTD. – PETITIONER
VERSUS
MUKTINATH AIRLINES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
ARBITRATION CASE (CIVIL) NO.37 OF 2014
Decided On : 15-10-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
When the agreement provides for arbitration and parties have a dispute, an arbitrator should be appointed.

Headnote:Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) r/w MOU, clause 24 – Dispute between the parties is whether the petitioner is entitled to performance of the terms of MOU – This and all other issues raised by respondents are within competence and jurisdiction of the Arbitrator u/s 16 of the Act – Petition allowed and arbitrator appointed. (Para 7, 8)

       Facts of the case:

       The respondent No.1 -Muktinath Airlines Private Limited is the owner of a Helicopter Robinson R44 Raven II. Respondent No.1 executed a power of attorney dated 20th June, 2013 authorising the respondent No.2 – Galaxy Aviation Incorporation Private Limited to sell the said Helicopter. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 4th July, 2013 was entered into between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 incorporating the terms for the sale of the Helicopter.

       On 17th July, 2013 MOU was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 represented by its power of attorney i.e. respondent No.2 for sale of the Helicopter in question. The price was agreed upon and an advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lakhs only) was paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1.

       It was also agreed that the sale of the Helicopter would be completed within two months.

       On the respondents failure to handover possession of the Helicopter within the extended period, and the respondent No.2 demanding a sum of Rs.15 lakhs over and above the agreed sale price [Rs.2,04,00,000 (Rupees Two crore four lakhs)], legal notice was issued by the petitioner to the respondents.

       The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and interim orders were passed. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause (clause 24) of the MOU dated by notice dated 13th February, 2014 and as the same had not been responded to, the instant petition has been filed u/s 11(6) of the 1996 Act.

       Finding of the Court:

       The petition deserves to be allowed.

       Result: Petition allowed, arbitrator appointed.

JUDGMENT

1. This application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator to go into the disputes and differences that the petitioner claims to have arisen between the petitioner–Company and the respondents under an Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.07.2013.

2. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 -Muktinath Airlines Private Limited is the owner of a Helicopter Robinson R44 Raven II. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 – Company executed a power of attorney dated 20th June, 2013 authorising the respondent No.2 – Galaxy Aviation Incorporation Private Limited to sell the said Helicopter. A Memorandum of Understanding (for short “MOU”) dated 4th July, 2013 was entered into between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 incorporating the terms for the sale of the Helicopter. The petitioner states that on 17th July, 2013 a MOU was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 represented by its power of attorney i.e. respondent No.2 for sale of the Helicopter in question. The price was agreed upon and an advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lakhs only) was paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1.

3. The petitioner has contended that it was agreed by and between the parties in the MOU dated 17th July, 2013 that the sale of the Helicopter would be completed within two months. The respondents failed to handover possession of the Helicopter within the aforesaid period. According to the petitioner, an addendum to the MOU dated 17th July, 2013 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 for extension of time upto 16th December, 2013 for the delivery of the Helicopter. It appears that the respondent No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.15 lakhs over and above the agreed sale price [Rs.2,04,00,000 (Rupees Two crore four lakhs)] which was responded to by the petitioner on 10th December, 2013, inter alia, informing the respondent No.2 of its failure to comply with clause 4 and clause 13 of the MOU dated 17th July, 2013. Accordingly, legal notice was issued by the petitioner to the respondents. As the petitioner apprehended that the respondents may sell the Helicopter to a third party it had approached the Delhi High Court by means of a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, interim orders were passed by the Delhi High Court on 14th March, 2014. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause (clause 24) of the MOU dated 17th July, 2013 by notice dated 13th February, 2014 and as the same had not been responded to the instant petition has been filed.

4. The respondent No.2 has chosen not to appear before the Court. The respondent No.1, who is represented, has filed an affidavit contending that in terms of MOU dated 4th July, 2013, between the respondents, it was agreed that if the respondent No.2 failed to make payment within one month from the date of the MOU (i.e. 4th July, 2013) then the said MOU would stand terminated. It was stated that the respondent No.2 had failed to make such payment and, therefore, the MOU between the respondents dated 4th July, 2013 had become non-est in law. The respondent No.1 has further contended that it is not bound by the MOU dated 17th July, 2013 as it was not a party to the same. It is the further contention of the respondent No.1 that the power of attorney was forged by the respondent No.2 and also that the MOU dated 4th July, 2013 between the respondents has been materially altered in respect of clause 12 and clause 19 thereof altering the periods specified in the said clauses from one month to three months.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and I have considered the submissions advanced. Clause 24 of the MOU dated 17th July, 2013 which provides for arbitration is in the following terms:

“24) This MOU will be governed by the provision of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 a
















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