Contractual monetary claims remain arbitrable despite pending competition proceedings, and parallel statutory challenges do not by themselves oust arbitration.

A contractual monetary claim arising from a subsisting sub-licence agreement remained arbitrable despite pending competition proceedings, because the Competition Commission could address alleged competition-law contraventions but could not adjudicate recovery of contractual dues. Section 61 of the Competition Act barred only matters the Commission or Appellate Tribunal was empowered to determine, so the arbitral tribunal retained jurisdiction over the in personam claim. Interference with the award was also ? No, no interference was warranted on challenges based on competition law, patent law, plant variety law, or state price-control notifications, as no final order had voided the agreement and the tribunal's factual findings were not shown to be perverse or patently illegal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the monetary claim arising from the 2015 sub-licence agreement was arbitrable notwithstanding pending proceedings before the Competition Commission of India and the bar under Section 61 of the Competition Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the arbitral award was liable to be interfered with on the grounds that the agreement was void or unenforceable under competition law, patent law, plant variety law, or state price-control notifications.

Issue (i): Whether the monetary claim arising from the 2015 sub-licence agreement was arbitrable notwithstanding pending proceedings before the Competition Commission of India and the bar under Section 61 of the Competition Act, 2002.

Analysis: The claim before the arbitral tribunal was a contractual claim for unpaid trait value arising under a subsisting agreement between the parties. The Competition Commission could determine alleged contraventions of competition law and grant the statutory remedies available under that Act, but it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate or decree recovery of contractual dues. Section 61 barred adjudication only of matters the Commission or Appellate Tribunal was empowered to determine. The tribunal therefore retained jurisdiction over the in personam monetary claim while leaving the competition-law issues open for decision by the Commission. Pending inquiry, prima facie orders, or an investigation direction under the Competition Act did not suspend or oust the arbitral process.

Conclusion: The monetary claim was arbitrable and the tribunal's jurisdiction was not ousted by the pending competition proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitral award was liable to be interfered with on the grounds that the agreement was void or unenforceable under competition law, patent law, plant variety law, or state price-control notifications.

Analysis: The Court found that no final order had declared the agreement void, anti-competitive, or modified under the Competition Act. The state enactments relied upon by the petitioners were held to regulate maximum sale price, not to fix trait value, and the award's factual finding on that aspect was not shown to be perverse. The patent challenge was still pending and the claim before the tribunal was for contractual trait value, not for enforcement of patent rights. The plant-variety statute was held inapplicable on the facts because the statutory trigger conditions were not established. The tribunal's findings on waiver, contractual validity, and recovery of amounts already collected from farmers were treated as plausible findings based on evidence and were not shown to suffer from patent illegality or perversity.

Conclusion: No ground for interference with the award was made out on these challenges.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed because the arbitral tribunal correctly confined itself to the contractual monetary claim and did not trespass into matters reserved for competition-law adjudication, while the award itself disclosed no error warranting interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal may decide a contractual claim for monetary relief arising from an arbitration agreement even where a parallel competition-law challenge to the underlying agreement is pending, so long as it does not decide matters exclusively reserved to the competition authority; pendency of such statutory proceedings does not by itself render the contractual claim non-arbitrable.

---