IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J.
M/s. M.B.S. Impex Private Limited & another - Applicants
Versus
Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Limited – Respondent
ARB.APPL No.5 of 2013
Decided On : 29-04-2020
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 – Arbitration agreement – Two companies i.e. M/s.MBS Impex Private Limited and M/s.MBS Jewellers Private Limited, both represented by its managing director, the applicant herein, filed this arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking nomination of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes with the respondent-Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Limited, which is a Government of India enterprise – Held, finding of the trial Court in Section 8 application does not amount to res-judicata and will have no bearing on this matter for the reason that the basis and claim in the suit filed by the respondent is not on the basis of the MOU dated 25-11-2005, but based on M/s.KPMG report and some of the parties in the suit are not parties to the MOU dated 25-11-2005 and they are totally strangers as far as MOU dated 25-11-2005. The MOU dated 25-11-2005 cannot be the basis of the suit claim as according to both parties themselves, the disputes arising thereunder are settled by way of MOU - Applicant having participated in the suit proceedings initiated by the respondent-company, subjected himself to jurisdiction of the trial Court and filed written statement, cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the dispute be referred to arbitration - There are no grounds in the arbitration application and it is accordingly dismissed (Paras 29,30,31)
Facts of the Case:
the 1st applicant is a private limited company incorporated in the year 2000 for the purpose of carrying out the business in bullion trading and export of jewellery, likewise, the 2nd applicant is also a private limited company incorporated in the year 2005 for the purpose of doing business in bullion trading, sales of gold jewellery.
Finding of the Court:
finding of the trial Court in Section 8 application does not amount to res-judicata and will have no bearing on this matter for the reason that the basis and claim in the suit filed by the respondent is not on the basis of the MOU dated 25-11-2005, but based on M/s.KPMG report and some of the parties in the suit are not parties to the MOU dated 25-11-2005 and they are totally strangers as far as MOU dated 25-11-2005. The MOU dated 25-11-2005 cannot be the basis of the suit claim as according to both parties themselves, the disputes arising thereunder are settled by way of MOU - Applicant having participated in the suit proceedings initiated by the respondent-company, subjected himself to jurisdiction of the trial Court and filed written statement, cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the dispute be referred to arbitration - There are no grounds in the arbitration application and it is accordingly
Result: Petition dismissed
ORDER :
Two companies i.e. M/s.MBS Impex Private Limited and M/s.MBS Jewellers Private Limited, both represented by its managing director, the applicant herein, filed this arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short, “the Act”) seeking nomination of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes with the respondent-Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Limited, which is a Government of India enterprise, (in short, “the respondent-company”).
2. Section 7 of the Act prescribes what an arbitration agreement means and what constitutes an arbitration agreement. In that context, it is to be seen whether there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement, the dispute is alive between the parties and such dispute is in relation to the subject matter of the agreement; whether there is fraud to disentitle the relief sought in the arbitration application. To unravel these issues, it is necessary to note the relevant pleadings of the parties.
3. The facts stated are:- the 1st applicant is a private limited company incorporated in the year 2000 for the purpose of carrying out the business in bullion trading and export of jewellery, likewise, the 2nd applicant is also a private limited company incorporated in the year 2005 for the purpose of doing business in bullion trading, sales of gold jewellery. That the respondent-company being a nominated agency of the Government of India, permitted to import gold metal from foreign suppliers and in the course of its pursuit to do business in bullion, offered to sell gold metal on outright sale as also on loan basis to jewellery exporters and the domestic users and devised a scheme. In pursuit thereof, the Dy. Manager (PM) of the respondent-company addressed a covering letter dated 25-11-2005 while enclosing the memorandum of understanding (MOU), dated 25-11-2005 to the applicant to sign the original and return the same to them and accordingly, the applicant signed the MOU and returned the original to the respondent-company by retaining a copy thereof. Thereafter, the business between the applicant and the respondent-company commenced and continued between 2005 to 2012 during which period, the applicant is stated to have has done business of more than Rs.10,000 crores on an ongoing basis of purchasing gold on outright basis and also availing the gold on loan basis. That the applicant used to demand for statement of accounts vis-a-vis the delivery challans, final invoices and the bullion drill of gold rate, rupee values and other charges levied from time to time to reconcile accounts at his end. That in spite of repeated requests, the details of the accounts have not been furnished by the respondent-company. Therefore, the applicant sent notice dated 24-09-2012 for arbitration (in short, “1st arbitration notice”) invoking the arbitration clause under MOU dated 25-11-2005. However, the parties mutually held good faith negotiations and in pursuance thereof, with consent, entered another MOU dated 05-10-2012 and at the request of the respondent-company, the applicant withdrew the 1st arbitration notice dated 24-09-2012. That the respondent-company, despite taking jewellery worth Rs.47 crores, post dated security cheques worth Rs.130 crores and equivalent worth of corporate guarantee in addition to the mortgage of prime landed property admeasuring Ac.5-00 gts as collateral security from applicant, again defaulted in resuming the supply of gold metal to the applicant thus violated the terms of the MOU dated 05-10-2012. Therefore, the applicant has once again invoked the arbitration clause in the MOU dated 25-11-2005 vide notice dated 15-11-2012 (in short, “2nd arbitration notice”) which was received by the respondent-company on 30-11-2012, and despite receipt of notice, the respondent-company failed to consent on or before 30 days time i.e., by 30-12-2012 for resolving the dispute through arbitration. That the arbitration proceedings deemed to have commenced fro
A. Ayyasamy Vs. A. Paramasivam
Booz Allen & Hamiliton Inc Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd.
Caravel Shipping Services Private Limited Vs. Premier Sea Foods Exim Private Limited
Govind Rubber Limited Vs. Louis Deryfus Commodities Asia
Jugal Kishore Rameshwardas Vs Mrs.Goolbai Hormusji
M.R. Engineers And Contractors Private Limited Vs. Som Datt Builders Limited
M/S. Sudaram Finance Limmited Vs. M/S. Nepc India Limited
M/S.Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs. M/S.Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana
N. Radhakrishnan Vs. Maestro Engineers
U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Vs. Indure Pvt. Ltd.
Vimal Kishor Shah Vs. Jayesh Dinesh Shah
Young Achievers Vs. Ims Learning Resources Private Limited (2013) 10 SCC 535
Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies Private Limited Vs. M/S.Nicholas Piramala India Limited
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.