IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
Peaceful Water Limited of Monrovia Liberia – Appellant
Versus
Eastern Multitrans Logistics Pvt Ltd. –Respondent
ICOMAOA No.1 of 2023
Decided on : 29-08-2023
Section 9 - Arbitration and Conciliation - 9, 27, 37 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to international commercial arbitration, the appointment of arbitrators, and the enforceability of foreign awards under Section 48. The court also considered the fundamental policy of India and the public policy clause under Section 48(2)(b) in relation to the enforcement of foreign awards.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought various reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, related to a charterparty agreement for the shipment of Bagged Rice. The respondent failed to make payments as per the agreement, leading to arbitration and subsequent awards in favor of the petitioner. The respondent opposed the application, claiming that the award was unenforceable and contrary to the public policy of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief under Section 9. The court also noted the respondent's failure to comply with disclosure orders and allowed the application, directing the respondent to secure the petitioner's claim by furnishing security.
Issues: The issues involved the enforceability of foreign awards, the appointment of arbitrators, and the application of Section 9 to international commercial arbitration. The court also considered the respondent's objections regarding the public policy of India and the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is applicable to international commercial arbitration, and interim relief can be sought before the enforcement of the award under Section 48. The court also emphasized the need to prevent dissipation and diversion of assets pending the enforcement of foreign awards.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, directing the respondent to secure the petitioner’s claim by furnishing security in the form of a cash deposit or an unconditional Bank Guarantee.
ORDER :
This application is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking the following reliefs:
(b) An order appointing a Court Receiver or Court Commissioner to take possession of the Respondent company’s assets that is equivalent to the awarded sum by the Sole Arbitrator and in the interim to direct the Respondent to not dissipate or deal with any of its assets.
(c) For awarding costs of the present proceedings and
(d) Pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2.1 The petitioner (owner) and the respondent (charterer) entered into a charterparty agreement evidenced by signed fixture note dated 26.08.2021 (herein after referred to as “the Charterparty") incorporating the terms of a charter relating to the vessel “M.V. Faith” by time charter document of 30.06.2020.
The charter party provided that it should be subject to English Law and for any disputes arising to be referred to arbitration in London. The Charterparty entered between the parties was for the shipment of Bagged Rice (24INX36INX26IN 5OKG BAGS) from Krishnapatnam, India to Cotonou (Benin) and Tema (Ghana) and the time period was for about 80 days without guarantee.
2.2. It is claimed by the petitioner that the Charterparty entered between the parties on a daily hire rate of USD 38,500 PDPR INCLOT (Per Day Pro Rata Including Overtime) was agreed and fixed under Clause 30 of the Charterparty. Clause 31 of the Charterparty provided that the first 45 days of hire was to be paid within five (5) banking days after delivery into the charter service and thereafter, hire was payable every fifteen (15) days in advance. The Charterparty provided for an arbitration clause at Clause 38 of the fixture Note. The parties, in furtherance to the arbitration clause, also incorporated the BIMCO Standard Dispute Resolution Clause which stood incorporated into the Charterparty
2.3. According the petitioner, the respondent delayed made payment of its first hire charges and subsequently made payment of the second hire. The respondent had since then failed to make payment of the outstanding hire in terms of the Charterparty. Thus, after the payment of the first and the second hire payment the respondents became obliged to make payment of hire of a net USD 556.593.75 each from 15.12.2021 on each 15 day anniversary thereafter. However, the respondent failed to make payment of hire in time with the Charterparty.
2.4. Due to the breach of the respondent for non-payment of the charter hire, the petitioner on 04.01.2022 invoked arbitration against the respondent and appointed Mr. Bruce Harris as petitioner's arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause as set out under Clause 38 of the Charterparty and the BIMCO Standard Dispute Resolution Clause incorporated into the Charterparty. The petitioner, thereafter, called upon the respondent to appoint its arbitrator within fourteen (14) days. It was clearly stated by the petitioner in its notice invoking arbitration that in case the respondent fails to appoint an arbitrator within fourteen (14 days), Mr. Bruce Harris will be appointed as a Sole Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the Charterparty. The respondent failed to appoint/nominate an arbitrator within fourteen (14) days and accordingly, the Petitioner that Mr. Bruce Harris has been appointed as the Sole Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause provided under the Charterparty.
2.5. It is stated that in the meantime while the hire payment became outstanding
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to international commercial arbitration, and the court's authority to ....
The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is upheld unless specific procedural or public policy violations are proven, which was not established in ....
Point of law : Section 34 of English Arbitration Act deals with procedural and evidential matters.
The Emergency Arbitrator's decision is binding and enforceable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing party autonomy and the need for compliance with interim orders.
Arbitration awards, lacking jurisdiction, do not equate to money decrees; interim relief granted during appeal pending jurisdictional determinations.
The court clarified that without an explicit agreement to exclude Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, its applicability cannot be assumed, allowing claims under Section 9 for interim relief despite ong....
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.