TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms commercial nature of Consultant Services Agreement between RMI and Boeing</h1> <h3>R.M. INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. Versus BOEING CO.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the Consultant Services Agreement between RMI and Boeing is commercial in nature. The suit filed ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Consultant Services Agreement between RMI and Boeing is commercial in nature.2. Whether the suit filed by RMI against Boeing should be stayed u/s 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition & Enforcement) Act, 1961.3. Whether the amendment of the plaint and the addition of Air India as a party defendant to the suit were valid.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Commercial Nature of the Consultant Services AgreementThe primary issue was whether the Consultant Services Agreement between RMI and Boeing is commercial in nature. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the transaction between RMI and Boeing is commercial, and they do stand in a commercial relationship. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the agreement to render consultancy services by RMI to Boeing is commercial in nature. The Court emphasized that the term 'commercial' should be construed broadly, considering the manifold activities integral to international trade today. The Court referenced the Model Law prepared by UNCITRAL, which includes 'consulting' as a relationship of a commercial nature.Issue 2: Stay of Suit u/s 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition & Enforcement) Act, 1961The second issue was whether the suit filed by RMI against Boeing should be stayed u/s 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition & Enforcement) Act, 1961. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed Boeing's application for stay, holding that the conditions required for the application of Section 3, as indicated by the Supreme Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., were fulfilled. The Supreme Court agreed with this decision, noting that the claim in the suit arises under the Consultant Services Agreement and is not dehors the agreement. The Court also rejected the argument that the suit should proceed against Air India alone, as Air India was impleaded only to obtain discovery and production of certain documents.Issue 3: Amendment of the Plaint and Addition of Air India as a Party DefendantThe third issue was the validity of the amendment of the plaint and the addition of Air India as a party defendant. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the amendment and impleadment of Air India. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the interim order dated 19-4-1993, which stayed the suit, precluded the trial court from proceeding with the hearing of the amendment application. The Division Bench found that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to proceed in respect of the suit in any way whatsoever.ConclusionAll three special leave petitions filed by RMI were dismissed by the Supreme Court, upholding the decisions of the Division Bench of the High Court on all issues.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
