IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NEELA GOKHALE, J.
M/s. Devike Constructions and Developers Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Dilip Vengsarkar Foundation – Respondent
Arbitration Petition No. 216 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2024
Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - MOU - Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950
Fact of the Case:
The petition seeks appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising out of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) dated 16th June 2011. The Petitioner is a company engaged in a business of construction and land development and the Respondent is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner company, being a third party and not a party to the MOU, cannot enforce the terms of either the MOU or the arbitration clause contained in the MOU. The petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator was dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was regarding the maintainability of the petition on account of the petitioner company not being a signatory to the MOU containing the arbitration clause.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a third party cannot enforce the terms of a contract to which it is not a party, and in this case, the Petitioner company, being a third party, had no privity of contract with the Respondent Trust arising out of the MOU. Therefore, the petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator was dismissed as not maintainable.
Final Decision: The Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator was dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
NEELA GOKHALE, J.
1. The petition seeks appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate disputes arising out of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) dated 16th June 2011.
2. The Petitioner is a company engaged in a business of construction and land development and the Respondent is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (“PCMC”), by an agreement dated 2nd November 2007 vested certain rights in land bearing Survey No. 09(Part) admeasuring approximately 2.56 Hectares at village Theargaon, Pune for a period of 30 years in the Trust. The Trust was permitted to construct a playground and run a Cricket Academy/Gymkhana providing International Standard Training and Coaching facilities to young cricket aspirants from Pimpri-Chinchwad and other adjoining areas free of cost.
3. A MOU dated 16th June 2011 was executed by and between the Respondent Trust and one Shri Dhanraj Keshrimal Sonigara referred to as ‘Promoter’ in the MOU. In terms of MoU a special purpose entity namely ‘DV Gymkhana and Clubhouse’ (“DVGC”) was to be incorporated to undertake the responsibility of development of the playground and the Cricket Academy. It was agreed that the DVGC shall engage the promoter or his agent/assignee for undertaking the activities on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon by the parties.
4. The relevant clauses of the MOU read as thus:
2. Agreement between DVF & DVGC: DVF shall therefore enter into an agreement with DVGC for carrying out the development activities on the said property in the light of responsibilities cast on it by the NOV'07 Agreement for such consideration and on such terms and conditions which are briefly set out in Appendix 1 to this MOU.
3. Agreements with the Promoter: The said DVGC, not having direct experience or exposure in matters related construction and development; running and managing a Club with all its amenities and services or in regard to raising finance for such ventures shall enter into contract/s with the Promoter who shall act as project consultants and advisers on a turnkey basis. The said promoter has also expressed willingness to undertake some or all of the assigned tasks either directly or through entities or agents designated/authorized by them for the purposes of achieving the agreed objectives. It is understood by the parties hereto that the detailed terms shall be agreed upon taking into consideration comparable prices and offers made by other entities. However, other things being equal, the entities suggested by the promoter would be preferred by DVF/DVGC in light of the assistance and advice rendered by the promoter in formulating this venture. Accordingly, as per the advice given by the promoter in regard to the overall scheme of the project, the following three broad areas for which contracts would be entered into are mentioned hereunder:
(i) Construction of Cricket Gymkhana appurtenent to the cricket ground which is already in the charge and possession of DVF, Pavilion and incidental infrastructure and cricket facilities which would be used as Cricket Academy, and further the construction of Club House a
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 8 SCC 42
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of privity of contract, emphasizing that a third party cannot enforce the terms of a contract to which it is not a party.
A binding arbitration agreement exists despite challenges to the validity of accompanying contracts, with disputes to be resolved by an appointed arbitrator.
Dissenting non-signatory member of cooperative society not bound by arbitration clause in development agreement with developer; lacks consent as veritable party despite beneficiary status or executin....
The court found that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, permitting disputes from multiple MoUs to be addressed in arbitration, emphasizing the limited judicial review role in such m....
The arbitration agreement binds all parties, including non-signatories, and disputes must be referred to arbitration despite objections on limitation and jurisdiction.
The court ruled that allegations of fraud do not negate the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, which operates independently from the underlying contract.
An arbitration agreement must clearly express the parties' intention to submit disputes to arbitration, and an arbitrator cannot adjudicate disputes involving his own decisions to avoid bias.
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.