Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1676 - SC - Indian LawsWhether a settlement of disputes or differences through a two-tier arbitration procedure as provided for in Clause 14 of the contract between the parties is permissible under the laws of India? - Held that: - the parties have agreed on a two tier arbitration system through Clause 14 of the agreement and Clause 16 of the agreement provides for the construction of the contract as a contract made in accordance with the laws of India. We see nothing wrong in either of the two clauses mutually agreed upon by the parties. There is nothing in the A&C Act that prohibits the contracting parties from agreeing upon a second instance or appellate arbitration-either explicitly or implicitly. No such prohibition or mandate can be read into the A&C Act except by an unreasonable and awkward misconstruction and by straining its language to a vanishing point. We are not concerned with the reason why the parties (including HCL) agreed to a second instance arbitration-the fact is that they did and are bound by the agreement entered into by them. HCL cannot wriggle out of a solemn commitment made by it voluntarily, deliberately and with eyes wide open - the arbitration Clause in the agreement between the parties does not violate the fundamental or public policy of India by the parties agreeing to a second instance arbitration. Assuming a two-tier arbitration procedure is permissible under the laws of India, whether the award rendered in the appellate arbitration being a 'foreign award' is liable to be enforced under the provisions of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the instance of Centrotrade? If so, what is the relief that Centrotrade is entitled to? - Held that: - The appeals should be listed again for consideration of the second question which relates to the enforcement of the appellate award. Appeal disposed off.
|