TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a chamber summons seeking to introduce or amplify a new ground of challenge to an arbitral award could be entertained after expiry of the limitation period under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (ii) whether the underlying agreement was in substance a leave and licence arrangement attracting the protective and exclusive-jurisdiction regime of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 and the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, so as to invalidate the arbitration award on public policy grounds; (iii) whether the grant of interest by the arbitral tribunal was liable to be set aside.
Issue (i): Whether a chamber summons seeking to introduce or amplify a new ground of challenge to an arbitral award could be entertained after expiry of the limitation period under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: The challenge to the award had to be made within the time prescribed by Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A ground not raised within that period could not be introduced later by amendment or amplification if it amounted to a fresh and independent ground of attack. If the point was already contained in the original petition, a chamber summons was unnecessary. The Court held that the limitation structure of Section 34 left no room for entertaining a new challenge after the prescribed period.
Conclusion: The chamber summons was correctly dismissed.
Issue (ii): Whether the underlying agreement was in substance a leave and licence arrangement attracting the protective and exclusive-jurisdiction regime of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 and the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, so as to invalidate the arbitration award on public policy grounds.
Analysis: The agreement, read as a whole, described a business centre arrangement with provision of furniture, office space and ancillary services, and expressly negatived creation of any tenancy or licence right. The party challenging the award had not raised or proved, before the arbitral tribunal, that the document was something other than what it ex facie stated. The Court held that the document could not be treated as a leave and licence agreement on the record before it. On that footing, the public policy challenge founded on rent-control protections and exclusive jurisdiction also failed.
Conclusion: The contention based on leave and licence, exclusive jurisdiction and public policy was rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether the grant of interest by the arbitral tribunal was liable to be set aside.
Analysis: Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confers discretion on the arbitral tribunal to award interest at a rate it considers reasonable where the parties have not agreed otherwise. The tribunal had treated the deposit as refundable once the respondent returned the premises and discontinued the arrangement, and it awarded interest from the date the amount became repayable. The Court found no illegality in that approach and no basis to interfere under Section 34.
Conclusion: The award of interest was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were found to disclose no ground for interference with the arbitral award or with the dismissal of the chamber summons, and the award was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a new ground of challenge cannot be introduced after the limitation period has expired, and an arbitral award will not be set aside on public policy grounds where the underlying agreement, on its face and on the material before the Court, is not shown to be a protected leave and licence arrangement.
TaxTMI 
