IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Bentwood Seating System P Limited - Appellant
Versus
Airport Authority Of India - Respondent
FAO(OS)(Comm) 97/2021 & Cm Appls. 23582-83/2021
Decided On : 11-08-2021
Fraud - Arbitration - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a Purchase Order for supply of Passenger Baggage Trolleys (PBTs) placed by the respondent on the appellant. The respondent terminated the Purchase Order and invoked the Bank Guarantee, leading to arbitration proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the finding of the learned Arbitrator in setting aside the termination notice but set aside the Arbitral Award due to the failure of the Arbitrator to adjudicate on the essential issue of whether the Purchase Order had been procured by fraud.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Purchase Order had been obtained by the appellant by fraud, which was not adjudicated by the Arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure of the Arbitrator to address the issue of fraud in the Purchase Order was a fundamental defect that could not be cured by taking recourse to Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge to set aside the Arbitral Award due to the failure to address the issue of fraud in the Purchase Order.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the judgment and order dated 27.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.M.P. (COMM) No.262/2019, titled Airports Authority of India vs. Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd., allowing the said petition filed under Section 34 of the Act by the respondent.
2. The above petition was filed by the respondent herein under Section 34 of the Act challenging the Arbitral Award dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in arbitration case reference No. DIAC/2225/09-18 between the parties. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to allow the said petition and set aside the Arbitral Award on the ground that the learned Arbitral Tribunal has failed to decide one of the principal disputes between the parties in relation to the submission of the respondent that the purchase order dated 13.07.2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Purchase Order') issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant had been procured by the appellant by fraud.
3. The dispute between the parties arises out of the Purchase Order dated 13.07.2017 placed by the respondent on the appellant for supply of 4000 Stainless Steel Type Passenger Baggage Trolleys (hereinafter referred to as 'PBTs'). It need only be noticed that the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.01.2018 to the appellant, calling upon the appellant to show cause why the contract should not be terminated as only 550 PBTs had been supplied till that date. The appellant replied to the Show Cause Notice on 17.01.2018, however, the respondent terminated the Purchase Order on 20.02.2018. The respondent also invoked the Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant and debarred the appellant for a period of three years with effect from 20.02.2018 from participating in any tender of the respondent in future. Aggrieved of the above, the disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre.
4. Before the learned Arbitrator the appellant prayed for the following reliefs:
" (a declare the action of the Respondent authorities as taken by them vide letter dated 20.2.2018, for cancelling/terminating the purchase order /contract No. 5-C/1/2016-ARII (Tech.)/ PBT/ 262 for forfeiting the security deposit and blacklisting and debarring for a period of three years, being null and void and unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same be quashed accordingly and directions be issued to take supply of the 3450 PBTs by complying with the terms and conditions of the contract as per the LOI dated 13.7.2017 and agreement dated 30.8.2017;
(b) declare the action of the Respondent No.2 vide his communication dated 23.2.2018, for invocation of the Bank Guarantee, as null and void and directions be issued to return the Bank Guarantee being B.G. No.0262BG000162017 for a sum of Rs. 17,30,124.31 to the claimant
(c) award a sum of Rs. 10,95,98,851/- in favour of the Claimant against the Respondents with the pendent lite interest @ 18 % per annum till its realization;
(d) award the cost of the present proceedings" (Emphasis supplied)
5. The learned Arbitrator vide the Award dated 13.03.2019 was pleased to set aside the termination order dated 20.02.2018 of the respondent, including the invocation of the Bank Guarantee as also the action of debarring the appellant. The learned Arbitrator also granted specific performance of the contract in the following terms:
"In view of the above, the Respondent - AAI is directed to carry out a one-time pre-dispatch inspection of the balance 3,100 stainless steel PBT's, allegedly available at the premises of the contractor/Claimant BSS Ltd., at Kolkata, after giving an advance notice to the Claimant - BSS Ltd., within four weeks from the date of receipt of the instant Award. For such of these (-3,100 stainle
Dyna Technologies Private Limited vs. Crompton Greaves Limited
AI
The failure to address a fundamental issue in an Arbitral Award, such as the issue of fraud, cannot be cured by taking recourse to Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court held that the contract could not be terminated on the ground of delay as the Airport Authority of India (AAI) had waived the requirement of 'time being the essence'. The court also found th....
The scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is extremely limited and is confined to cases where an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
The encashment of a performance bank guarantee does not require proof of loss, but must comply with the contract's terms; failure to evaluate these terms constitutes patent illegality.
The court upheld the validity of the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference and the necessity of demonstrating clear error or illegality.
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
The judgment emphasizes the narrow scope of interference with an arbitral award and the principle of waiver in raising new grounds on appeal.
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.