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>Arbitration petition granted for Swiss company vs. Commonwealth Games Committee. Minimal court intervention.</h1> <h3>Swiss Timing Limited Versus Organising Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010</h3> Swiss Timing Limited Versus Organising Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010 - AIR 2014 SC 3723, 2014 (6) SCC 677, 2014 (7) SCALE 515 Issues Involved:1. Non-payment of dues by the respondent.2. Alleged failure to follow the dispute resolution mechanism.3. Validity of the contract in light of criminal proceedings and allegations of fraud.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-payment of dues by the respondent:The petitioner, a Swiss company, entered into an agreement with the respondent, the Organising Committee of the Commonwealth Games 2010, to provide timing, score, and result systems (TSR systems/services). The petitioner claimed that despite fulfilling their contractual obligations and submitting the final invoice for CHF 1,249,500, the respondent defaulted on the payment without any justifiable reasons. The petitioner also demanded the return of an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 15,00,000, which was not refunded.2. Alleged failure to follow the dispute resolution mechanism:The respondent raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the petitioner did not follow the dispute resolution mechanism outlined in Clause 38 of the agreement, which required efforts to resolve disputes through negotiation before resorting to arbitration. However, the court found that the petitioner had made considerable efforts to resolve the issue amicably, including communications and letters from ambassadors of various countries, before invoking arbitration. Thus, the court rejected the respondent's claim of non-compliance with Clause 38.3.3. Validity of the contract in light of criminal proceedings and allegations of fraud:The respondent argued that the contract was void ab initio due to allegations of corrupt practices and ongoing criminal proceedings against officials involved in the agreement. They cited the registration of a criminal case under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court, however, held that these allegations need to be established in a proper forum with evidence. It emphasized that the arbitration clause is separable from the main contract, as per Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, which allows the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including the validity of the arbitration agreement. The court referred to precedents like Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums and Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, which support the principle of minimal court intervention in arbitration matters.The court also addressed the respondent's reliance on the judgment in N. Radhakrishnan vs. Maestro Engineers & Ors., which held that disputes involving allegations of fraud should be settled in court. The court found this judgment to be per incuriam, as it did not consider relevant precedents and statutory provisions. The court reiterated that arbitration should proceed unless the contract is patently void, which was not the case here.Conclusion:The court allowed the arbitration petition, appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh as arbitrators to adjudicate the disputes. The Registry was directed to communicate this order to the arbitrators to enable them to decide the matter expeditiously. The court emphasized the policy of least interference in arbitration proceedings and rejected the respondent's objections, allowing the arbitration to proceed despite the ongoing criminal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
