2017 (11) TMI 1916 - SC - Companies Law

Supreme Court appoints arbitrator, sets new guidelines for dispute resolution

MMTC LTD. Versus Shiv Sahai And Sons And Anr.

The Supreme Court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Memorandum of Agreement between the parties. The plaint in the suit was ... Refund of Court Fees - HELD THAT:- The parties agree that the plaint in the suit be treated as claim of the appellants and the claim petition filed by the respondents before the Arbitrator be treated as counter claim. The said documents will be furnished by the appellant to the learned Arbitrator within a period of two weeks from today. The venue of the arbitration can be at place convenient to the Arbitrator. However, the seat of the Arbitrator will be taken to be at Chennai. The arbitrator will be at liberty to take any expert assistance. In view of section 16 of the Court Fees Act 1870, the appellant will be entitled to move the Collector for refund of the Court fee. Appeal disposed off. Issues involved: Appointment of Arbitrator, Treatment of plaint and claim petition, Venue and seat of arbitration, Refund of Court fee, Superseding Arbitration ClauseAppointment of Arbitrator:The Supreme Court appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, a former Judge of the Court, as the Arbitrator to resolve all disputes arising from the Memorandum of Agreement dated 2nd April, 2008, between the parties. The decision was made at the joint request of the parties' counsel.Treatment of plaint and claim petition:The parties agreed that the plaint in the suit would be considered as the claim of the appellants, and the claim petition filed by the respondents before the Arbitrator would be treated as a counterclaim. The appellants were directed to provide these documents to the Arbitrator within two weeks from the date of the order.Venue and seat of arbitration:While the venue of the arbitration could be at a place convenient to the Arbitrator, the seat of the Arbitrator was established to be in Chennai. Additionally, the Arbitrator was granted the freedom to seek expert assistance as needed during the arbitration process.Refund of Court fee:In accordance with section 16 of the Court Fees Act 1870, the appellant was deemed entitled to approach the Collector for the refund of the Court fee.Superseding Arbitration Clause:The order issued by the Supreme Court was declared to supersede Arbitration Clause 11 in the Memorandum of Agreement dated 2nd April, 2008, thereby establishing the new guidelines and procedures for arbitration.Conclusion:The appeal was disposed of, and the parties were granted the liberty to communicate with the appointed Arbitrator for further proceedings, ensuring a fair and structured resolution process for the disputes at hand.