R.D.DHANUKA
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (india) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
The discussion in paragraph 309 is not primarily about a patent dispute. Instead, it focuses on whether the arbitral tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide on the monetary claims of the respondent arising from the agreement, in the context of ongoing proceedings before the Competition Commission of India (CCI). It emphasizes that the issues related to the validity and lawfulness of the agreement, which could involve patent rights, are separate from the claims for monetary relief under the arbitration agreement. The paragraph clarifies that the tribunal's jurisdiction to decide the monetary claims was not barred because the proceedings before the CCI, which involve questions of law and legality of the agreement, were still pending and had not resulted in a final declaration of the agreement being void or unlawful. Therefore, the paragraph is centered on jurisdictional and procedural considerations rather than directly addressing patent rights or disputes.
JUDGMENT
R D Dhanuka, J. - By Arbitration Petition No.737 of 2019 filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the majority arbitral award dated 16th January,2019 and order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under section 16 of the Act dismissing the said application.
2. By Arbitration Petition No.738 of 2019, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 16th January,2019 and the order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under section 16 of the Act dismissing the said application.
3. Commercial Arbitration Petition No.892 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned award dated 30th March,2019 rendered by the sole arbitrator and order dated 11th October,2017 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act). By consent of parties, the aforesaid petitions were heard together finally at the admission stage and are being disposed of by a common order.
FACTS IN
A. Ayyaswamy v/s. Paramasivam & Ors
Amrish Tewari v/s. Laltaprasad Dubey
Associate Builders v/s. Delhi Development Authority
Bhatia International vs. Bulk Trading S.A.
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. vs. SBI Homes Finance Limited
Competition Commission of India vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Emergent Genetics India Private Limited vs. Shailendra Shivam
Fuerst Day Lawson vs. Jindal Exports Limited
Gangai Vinayagar Temple vs. Meenakshi Ammal
Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v/s. Coastal Marine Constructions and Engineering Ltd.
Girnar Traders v/s. State of Maharashtra
Hansraj Gupta & Co. vs. Union of India
Harsha Constructions v/s. Union of India
Indian Farmers Fertiziler Cooperative Limited v/s. Bhadra Products
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. vs. Union of India
Mahavir J. Patil vs. Director of Resettlement and others
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v/s. Union of India
Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi vs. Delhi Development Authority
Man Roland Druckimachinen AG v/s. Multicolour Offset Ltd. and Anr.
Maqbul Ahmad v/s. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh
McDermott International Inc v/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
Murlidhar Aggarwal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Ichharam
National Institute of Mental health and Neuro Science v/s. C. Parameshwara
Pawan Hans Limited v/s. Union of India
Piloo Dhuinshaw Sidhwa v/s. Municipal Corporation of City of Poona
Prabhakaran and Ors. v/s. M. Azhagiri Pillai (Dead) by LRs. and Ors.
Ramesh Gobindram v/ s. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf
Sangnbhotla Venkatramaiah v/s. Kallu Venkataswamy
Sarthi Enterprises v/s. Union of India
Saurabh Prakash v/s. DLF Universal Limited
Shri Lachoo Mal vs. Shri Radhey Shyam
State of Assam v/s. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha
State of Goa v/s. Praveen Enterprises
Sukanya Holding vs. Jayesh H. Pandya
Tarsem Singh v/s. Sukhminder Singh
Union of India vs. Competition Commission of India
Vimal Kishor Shah vs. Jayesh Dinesh Shah
Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (P) Ltd. vs. Chief Inspector of Stamps (U.P.)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.