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 agreement enforced in film producers' dispute, petition dismissed.</h1> <h3>Gaurang Versus Vinay A. Choksi</h3> Gaurang Versus Vinay A. Choksi - 2015 (2) ALLMR 802 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the arbitrator due to the absence of an arbitration agreement.2. Service of notice of arbitral proceedings.3. Scope of the arbitral award relative to the statement of claim.4. Limitation period for filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator:The petitioner argued that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, as the tripartite agreement dated 18th June 2004 did not contain an arbitration clause. However, the respondent contended that the arbitration agreement arose from the Articles of Association of the Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA), which provided for arbitration of disputes among its members. The court held that since all parties were members of IMPPA, the arbitration clause in the Articles of Association applied. Furthermore, the petitioner had stepped into his father's shoes in continuing the business and thus was bound by the arbitration agreement.2. Service of Notice of Arbitral Proceedings:The petitioner claimed that he was not served notice of the arbitration proceedings. The court found that multiple notices were sent to the petitioner by IMPPA, and the petitioner had appointed Advocate Gajendra Singh to represent him in the arbitral proceedings. The advocate had received the award on the petitioner's behalf, indicating that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no merit in the contention of non-service of notice.3. Scope of the Arbitral Award:The petitioner contended that the award dealt with a dispute beyond the statement of claim. However, the court noted that the reference to arbitration was made by a letter dated 27th July 2007, which specifically mentioned the claim for refund of Rs. 57,00,000/- with interest. The court found that the award was within the scope of the statement of claim and dismissed this ground of challenge.4. Limitation Period:The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petition was barred by the law of limitation, as it was filed on 26th February 2010, well beyond the three-month period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner argued that he learned about the award only in January 2010 upon receiving notice of execution proceedings. The court examined the legal position on the delivery of the arbitral award, emphasizing that effective delivery must be to the party itself, not its advocate. The court accepted the petitioner's claim that he received the award in January 2010 and held that the petition was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioner. The arbitral award was upheld, and the petition was deemed to be within the period of limitation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
