Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1203 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of arbitration ward - whether the negation of the challenge by the AT was valid? - Held that:- The Petitioners would be barred in terms of Article 33 of the ICC Rules from raising any objection as to the constitution of the AT since they chose not to adhere to that requirement in respect of their own nominee i.e. M2. In Rail India Technical and Economic Services Limited v. Ravi Constructions (2001 (10) TMI 1170 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), the Supreme Court explained the consequences of such waiver. It was observed there that: “even if there is any violation or irregularity, by subjecting itself to the jurisdiction of Arbitrator, without challenging his appointment, RITES is also barred under the principles of estoppel and waiver from challenging the award of the Arbitrator on the ground that the Arbitrator was not appointed in terms of the appointment procedure.” Consequently, this Court rejects the submission of the Petitioners that the AT was improperly constituted thereby vitiating the impugned Award. Challenge on merits There is no merit in the contention that the impugned Award is an attempt by the Respondents to enforce the put option rights under Clause 5.2 of RSHA. The pleadings make it clear that the Respondents did not choose to enforce the “put option.” The Petitioners were bound by the clauses of the contract. In the decision of State of Haryana v. Jage Ram AIR [1980 (4) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT ], the Supreme Court observed that “those who contract with open eyes must accept the burdens of the contract along with its benefits.” No ground has been made out by the Petitioners to demonstrate that the impugned majority Award suffers from any legal infirmity attracting Section 34 of the Act. The threshold for a successful challenge to an Award in a petition under Section 34 of the Act is indeed very high and unless the reasoning in the impugned Award is so perverse as to shock the judicial conscience or lead to violation of Section 28 (3) of the Act the Court, the Court would not like to interfere. In the present petition, none of the grounds under Section 34 of the Act stand attracted. The impugned Award is, accordingly, upheld and the petition is dismissed with costs of ₹ 50,000 which would be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents within four weeks from today.
|