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 1531 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of Arbitral Award - fraud or coercion - it is alleged that the Consent Terms were executed under pressure or coercion and were executed by the Petitioner herein on the basis that the Respondent would comply with its obligations under the MOU, which allegedly had not been done by the Respondent herein - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- First and foremost there is no case pleaded of ‘fraud’ having been played upon the Petitioner herein while executing the Consent Terms. The case is one of coercion, which in itself is bereft of any material particulars. It is not enough for a party to simply come to Court and aver coercion. For over four months after passing of the Award, and despite being well aware of the same, no objection was raised by the Petitioner herein to the effect that the Consent Terms were entered into under coercion. In fact, the matter remained pending before the learned Arbitrator only for the purpose of paying fees of the Tribunal. Even as late as on 16th July 2015 the Advocates for the Petitioner herein appeared before the learned Arbitrator and made no attempt to resile from the Consent Terms but simply sought time to seek instructions for making payment of the Arbitrator's fees. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Respondent has in fact not complied with the terms of the MOU and on this ground alone, the Consent Terms must fail and the Award ought to be set aside. I cannot accept this submission. As is ex facie evident, the Consent Terms nowhere refer to the MOU. A reading of the Consent Terms shows that the payment terms therein were not conditional or contingent upon compliance with any terms of the MOU. I am not required to go into the question of whether the Respondent complied with the MOU, in as much as even assuming for argument's sake there had been non-compliance of the MOU by the Respondent, the Consent Terms, and accordingly the impugned Award, are not contingent upon the compliance with the MOU. Pertinently, even the resolution dated 16th March 2015 passed by the Board of Directors of the Petitioner herein authorizing the filing of the Consent Terms and the passing of the Award in terms thereof, makes no reference to the MOU, which in any event came to be executed only subsequently. Even assuming that the Petitioner herein has a grievance about any alleged non-compliance with the MOU, by the Respondent, the remedy of the Petitioner herein lies elsewhere, and this cannot be a ground to set aside the Award passed by consent of parties. The grounds urged by the Petitioner herein are unsustainable and appear to be an attempt to belatedly renege on the Consent Terms incorporated in the Award dated 18th March 2015 - Petition dismissed.
|