Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Amrish Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Gurchait Singh Chima - Respondent
O.M.P. (Comm) 68 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of arbitration award and disputes (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of property sale agreement and claims (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's interim orders and proceedings (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. death of respondent and its implications (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. findings of the arbitral tribunal (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. arguments raised by petitioner's counsel (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. admissibility of the award despite fraud allegations (Para 26 , 27) |
| 9. judicial scrutiny of arbitration agreements (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. supreme court precedents on arbitrability (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 11. supreme court's tests for arbitrability of disputes. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 12. test for determining arbitrability (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 13. separation of arbitration agreement from main contract (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 14. parties' acceptance of arbitration despite disputes (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 15. petitioner's conduct in arbitration proceedings (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 16. scope of judicial review of arbitral awards (Para 54 , 55) |
| 17. handwriting expert evaluations and findings (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 18. admissibility of petitions and court's conclusions (Para 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 19. final deliberations on specific performance (Para 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 20. tribunal's findings on performance and obligations. (Para 65 , 66) |
| 21. dismissal of petition and conclusion (Para 67 , 68 , 69) |
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 17.12.2020 (hereafter the 'impugned award') delivered by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by Justice (Retired) Manmohan Sarin, former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court as the Sole Arbitrator (hereafter the 'Arbitral Tribunal').
2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to an alleged Agreement to Sell dated 07.08.2014 (hereafter the 'Agreement to Sell') executed in respect of a property bearing number B-II/6, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi (hereafter the 'property') for a consideration of Rs. 11 crores.
3. The petitioner denies the execution of the Agreement to Sell and states that the said document is a forged document as it does not bear his signatures. This is the principal dispute between the parties. The petitioner contends that the impugned award is liable to be set aside as the Arbitral Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute.
Factual Context
4. It is stated that the respondent was willing to invest in a plot of land in India and the petitioner had offered to sell the property to the respondent. In the month of May 2014, several discussions took place between the petitioner, respondent (Late Mr Gurchait Singh Chima) and one Mr Surinder Wadhwa (representative of the respondent) for sale of the property.
5. The respondent states that it was agreed between the parties that the property would be sold to the respondent for a total amount of Rs. 11 crores. Accordingly, on 07.08.2014, the petitioner executed the Agreement to Sell in the presence of Mr Surinder Wadhwa, who is the representative of the respondent. The respondent was not present in India at the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell, however, he claimed that he had witnessed the same through an online video call (that is, through FaceTime).
6. The respondent further contended that on the same date, that is 07.08.2014, the respondent paid an amount of Rs. 3 crores by a cheque bearing no. 016010 drawn on ICICI Bank and agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 8 crores, once the petitioner furnished a Conveyance Deed in his favour after conversion to 'freehold'.
7. The respondent further stated that an amount of Rs. 1.5 crores and Rs. 5 cror
The court affirmed that allegations of fraud do not inherently preclude arbitration, emphasizing the separability of arbitration agreements from main contracts, and held that specific performance of ....
Allegations of fraud and forgery do not inherently preclude the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal unless they directly impinge upon the arbitration agreement itself.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious allegations of fraud must be proven and should go to the validity of the arbitration agreement itself to render the disputes non-arbit....
Point of Law : If an allegation of fraud can be adjudicated upon in course of a trial before an ordinary civil court, there is no reason or justification to exclude such disputes from ambit and purvi....
The scope of enquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is restricted to the examination of the existence of the arbitration agreement. The burden lies on the party resis....
The grounds of fraud and forgery alleged in the plaint do not make out any case which would prevent the matter from being decided by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court acte....
Appointment of Arbitrator – When existence of arbitration agreement itself is in serious dispute and requires adjudication, appointment of Arbitrator would be premature and legally impermissible.
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
