Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
April Usa Assistance Inc. - Respondent
O.M.P. (Comm) 14 of 2020 and I.A. 315 of 2020 and 950 of 2020
Decided On : 28-10-2021
Limitation Act - International Commercial Arbitration - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - 2007 Agreement - 2009 Agreement - 2012 Agreement
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an Arbitral Award. The respondent, a company incorporated in the United States, claimed fees and bonuses under service provider agreements with the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the claims were barred by the Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claims were not barred by limitation as the parties were in negotiations for reconciliation of premiums paid, and the claims were kept alive until 2015. The court also held that the impugned award did not contravene the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Issues: The issues included whether the claims were barred by limitation and whether the impugned award was contrary to the agreements between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claims were not barred by limitation as the disputes were kept alive until 2015, and the impugned award did not contravene the fundamental policy of Indian law. The court also found that the impugned award did not run contrary to the agreements between the parties.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act') impugning an Arbitral Award dated 15.09.2019 (hereafter the 'impugned award') delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereafter the 'Arbitral Tribunal').
2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of the claims made by the respondent. The respondent is a company incorporated under the laws of the United States of America and consequently, the impugned award was rendered in an international commercial arbitration as defined under Section 2(l)(f) of the A&C Act.
3. The petitioner is one of the Public Sector General Insurance Companies. It assails the impugned award, principally, on the ground that it is opposed to the public policy of India. According to the petitioner, the claims made by the respondent were barred by the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereafter the 'Limitation Act') and the impugned award allowing the claims falls foul of the fundamental policy of Indian Law.
Factual Context
4. The respondent is, inter alia, engaged in the business of providing assistance to Overseas Medical Policy Holders and services the claims made under the Medial Insurance Policies.
5. In the year 2006, the Association of Public Sector General Insurance Companies in India invited tenders for selection of service providers for providing services in respect of Overseas Medical Policies (hereafter also referred to as 'OMPs') issued by their members including the petitioner.
6. The respondent participated in the tender process and was selected as the Overseas Service Provider for policies issued by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner, the respondent (known as Coris S.A. at the material time), and its Indian affiliate M/s Heritage Health TPA Pvt. Ltd, entered into a Service Provider Agreement dated 15.03.2007. This agreement is referred to as the 2007 Agreement' in the impugned award and is referred to as such in this order as well.
7. The 2007 Agreement continued till the year 2009 and, on its expiry, the said parties entered into a similar Tripartite Agreement dated 29.06.2009 (referred to as the 2009 Agreement') and on expiry of the 2009 Agreement, the parties had entered into another Service Provider Agreement dated 31.05.2012 (referred to as the 2012 Agreement'). The term of the 2012 Agreement was valid till April 2015, but was extended till October, 2015.
8. The rights and obligations of the parties under the three Agreements (2007 Agreement, 2009 Agreement and 2012 Agreement) were similar in material aspects. However, the fees payable by the petitioner for the services rendered under the said Agreements differed.
9. Under the 2007 Agreement, the respondent was entitled to receive fees as well as an Annual Bonus in respect of the services rendered by it. The said fees, Annual Bonus and Annual Additional Bonus were required to be calculated on the 'annual audited premium' by the petitioner. The fees were to be paid on quarterly basis and the Annual Bonus (and Additional Annual Bonus) was agreed to be paid within a period of thirty days from the finalization of the annual audited premium.
10. The controversy between the parties, essentially, relates to the fees payable by the petitioner in respect of certain group medical policies or certain medical policies issued under the name ' TrawellTag'. These medical policies were issued through one Karvat Travel Services Private Limited (hereafter 'Karvat'). The TrawellTag policies were issued at a discounted premium of 69% and it is stated that the said discount was retained by Karvat. It appears that these policies were issued in bulk to groups of travellers. The respondent claimed that it had sought details of the premium collected under various policies including TrawellTag policies but the necessary details were not provided. It claimed that by an email dated 28.11.2014, the petitioner had provided the details o
AI
The impugned award did not contravene the fundamental policy of Indian law, and the claims were not barred by limitation.
An arbitrator's award must provide intelligible reasoning; failure to do so violates public policy, allowing for it to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The court affirmed that claims for breach of contract are subject to statutory limitation periods, which cannot be extended by claims of continuing breaches.
The Court held that the Arbitral Award does not suffer from any infirmities enshrined in Section 34 of the Act. The Impugned is not in conflict with the public policy of India. Further, the learned T....
The Court held that the impugned award with respect to Claim 7 was not well-reasoned as required by the Act under Section 31(3), and the impugned award with respect to the award in Claim 11 is contra....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
