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 enforcement of the foreign award could be refused under Section 48(1)(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that the arbitration was not conducted in accordance with the parties' agreement. (ii) Whether the award was vitiated by fraud because the claimant's name had been struck off the register of companies, and whether subsequent restoration under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 affected enforceability.
Issue (i): Whether enforcement of the foreign award could be refused under Section 48(1)(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that the arbitration was not conducted in accordance with the parties' agreement.
Analysis: The arbitration clause required disputes to be submitted to SIAC, but also provided for arbitration in accordance with the ICC Rules by three arbitrators. SIAC had declined to administer an ICC arbitration, and ICC had clarified that ICC Rules could be administered only by the ICC Court. The agreed institutional mechanism was therefore unworkable in the SIAC part, while the core bargain to arbitrate under ICC Rules remained intact. The invalid or unworkable part of the clause was severable, and the tribunal was constituted and proceeded in accordance with the ICC Rules. The court also held that the foreign tribunal's jurisdictional ruling was not conclusive, but on independent examination the enforcement objection failed.
Conclusion: Enforcement could not be refused under Section 48(1)(d); the arbitration procedure was in substance in accordance with the parties' agreement, and the objection was against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the award was vitiated by fraud because the claimant's name had been struck off the register of companies, and whether subsequent restoration under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 affected enforceability.
Analysis: Mere non-disclosure of the striking off of the company's name did not amount to fraud in the absence of deliberate deception to obtain an illegitimate benefit. The claims were for amounts legitimately due under a subsisting agreement, and there was no finding that the claimant sought to gain more than what was lawfully payable. Further, once the company's name was restored, Section 560(7) deemed it to have continued in existence as if it had never been struck off. The legal fiction had to be carried to its logical end, and the subsequent restoration cured the incapacity objection for enforcement purposes.
Conclusion: The award was not shown to be vitiated by fraud, and the restoration of the company's name defeated the objection based on non-existence; the issue was against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The objections to enforcement failed, the foreign awards were held enforceable, and the decree-holder was entitled to consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the core arbitration agreement is workable and the agreed institutional mechanism only fails in a severable part, enforcement of the foreign award cannot be denied under Section 48(1)(d); and restoration of a struck-off company under Section 560(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 retrospectively treats it as continuously ing in existence, absent proof of deliberate fraud.
TaxTMI 
