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

2016 Supreme(Del) 837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
VIRKARAN AWASTY – Petitioner
Versus
HASSAD NETHERLAND B.V. & OTHERS – Respondents
OMP (T) (COMM.) No. 18 of 2015
Decided On : 16-02-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr. Ishaan Chhaya, Mr. Aravind Verma and Mr. V.K. Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Sagar, Mr. Samar Kachwaha, Mr. Suryadeep Singh and Ms. Aarushi Balani, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Arbitral Tribunal has the authority to extend the time period for arbitration as per Article 4.7 of the LCIA India Rules, which is an integral part of the arbitration agreement.

Headnote:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Termination of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate - LCIA India Rules

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking termination of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate due to the expiration of the three-month time period prescribed in the arbitration agreement and allegations of fraud. The respondents No. 1 and 2, subsidiaries of the Qatar Investment Authority, alleged that they were induced into making a large investment in an Indian company, Bush Foods Overseas Private Limited, and suffered significant financial losses.

Finding of the Court:

The Court rejected the petitioner's plea, citing Article 4.7 of the LCIA India Rules, which allows the Arbitral Tribunal to extend the time period for arbitration, even if it has expired. The Court emphasized that the parties had agreed to the LCIA India Rules as an integral part of their arbitration agreement, and the Tribunal had the authority to extend the time period. The Court also noted that the petitioner's objections were not permissible at this stage and that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal had not terminated.

Issues: The issues considered by the Court included whether the Arbitral Tribunal had become unable to perform its functions, the maintainability of the challenge before a Civil Court, and the permissibility of an interlocutory challenge during the arbitration proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal had the power to extend the time period for arbitration as per Article 4.7 of the LCIA India Rules, which was an integral part of the arbitration agreement. The Court also emphasized that the petitioner's objections were not permissible at this stage and that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal had not terminated.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's plea and ruling in favor of the respondents No. 1 and 2. No costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) praying that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal be terminated on account of the Tribunal becoming de jure and de facto unable to perform its functions, mainly, on the reasons; firstly, the mandatory time period of three months prescribed under the arbitration agreements for passing the award has come to an end; and secondly, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have levelled allegations of fraud against the petitioner and his wife who is respondent No. 3 in its statement of claim. Thus, the allegations can only be tried by the Civil Court.

2. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 herein are the respondents in the arbitration proceedings. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are the claimants. The said proceedings are continuing despite of filing of the present petition. Notice in the petition has not yet been issued, rather two times, it was clarified by my learned Predecessor two Benches that the arbitration proceedings should continue.

3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 submit that they are subsidiaries of the Qatar Investment Authority (a Government of Qatar entity). The Qatar Investment Authority is one of the largest investors in the world. In March 2013, they were wrongfully induced into making a large investment in an Indian Company called Bush Foods Overseas Private Limited (in short, called “Bush Foods”), promoted and incorporated by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 in 2005. As part of the transaction, the respondents No. 1 and 2 invested a total of US$ 120.35 million and acquired 69.5% shareholding in the Company. Besides this, the respondent No. 2 furnished a Corporate Guarantee to a Bank consortium securitising 70% of the loans availed of by Bush Foods.

It is alleged that at the time of the transaction, Bush Foods was represented to be a financially healthy company. In reality however Bush Foods was a near bankrupt company and the respondents No. 1 and 2 have lost the entirety of their US$ 120.35 million investment and suffered a further loss of Rs. 441.68 crores plus US$ 8.14 million on account of invocation of the Corporate Guarantee furnished to the Bank consortium.

4. In view of the disputes arisen, the present ongoing arbitration under the LCIA India Rules, through a three member Tribunal, comprising of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh (both former Judges of the Supreme Court) and Mr. William Jentes, nominated by the LCIA Court as the Presiding Arbitrator.

5. When the representation for Arbitration was filed on 23rd September, 2013, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 filed their response on 21st October, 2014 and raised certain Preliminary Objections viz., alleged non-arbitrability of fraud, expiry period of three months period of Arbitration proceedings as prescribed in the agreement.

6. The LCIA Court by an order dated 12th January, 2015 decided that there was prima facie jurisdiction to constitute a Tribunal in this Arbitration and any unresolved issue pertaining to jurisdiction would be a matter for determination by the Tribunal.

7. The arbitration clauses are reproduced herein below:

“10.14.2 Arbitration

(a) Any and all disputes or differences arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or any breach thereof (the "Dispute”) which cannot be settled by friendly negotiation and agreement between the Parties shall be referred to arbitration in terms of Clause 10. 14.2(b) to Clause 10. 14.2(e).

(b) If after 30 days of consultation (or such shorter period if a Party wishes to apply for interim relief), the Parties have failed to reach an amicable settlement of a Dispute, the Dispute shall be submitted to arbitration at the request of either Party upon written notice to that effect to the other Party and such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the LCIA India Arbitration Rules in force


















































































































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