Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JASMEET SINGH
MMTC Limited – Appellant
Versus
Anglo-American Metallurgical Pty Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. Filing of the present suit by the plaintiff herein is a classic case of abuse of the process of law. Having exhausted all the remedies as available under the law, the present suit has been filed seeking to re- litigate the issues already adjudicated upon by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Arbitral Award which has been upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, on a ground of fraud not upon the Court but by the officials of the plaintiff itself. The issue which is before me is: Can a “suit” be maintainable to declare an Arbitral Award a nullity. In my view, if this is allowed, then the very purpose and object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) will be rendered infructuous/otiose.
2. The present suit filed by the plaintiff has claimed the following reliefs:-
“a) To pass a decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants to declare and hold that the Addendum No. 2 dated 20.11.2008 executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is vitiated by fraud and tainted by corruption and is thus void ab initio;
b) Pass a decree of declaration to declare that the Award dated 12.05.2014 passed by the International Chamber of C
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
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....
The court reaffirmed that civil suits to prevent arbitration are barred by law where an arbitration clause exists, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of civil courts over arbitration disputes.
The court established that challenges to an arbitrator's jurisdiction under Section 16 can only be raised after a final award, not as an interim appeal.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code, and the CPC does not apply; cross-objections under the CPC cannot be entertained.
An arbitrator's alleged bias requires proof of substantial control and an ongoing relationship with a party, which was not established in this case.
Venue of arbitration does not equate to its jurisdictional seat; petitions under the Arbitration Act must be filed where arbitration took place, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.
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
