Commercial Disputes - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration

22May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 20 of the Concession Agreements between MCD and private contractors did not constitute a valid arbitration clause under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that clauses lacking mutual intent, impartial adjudication, and procedural fairness cannot be enforced as arbitration agreements, directing parties to pursue alternative remedies. The judgment reiterated the essential elements of arbitration clauses from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) and upheld precedent in SDMC v. SMS AAMW Tollways (2019). Facts Of The Case: The case involved three separate appeals before the Supreme Court concerning Concession Agreements between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and private contractors (SMS Ltd., DSC Ltd., and CCC ...

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be annulled solely for lack of jurisdiction if no plea was raised before the tribunal under Section 16(2). It harmonized conflicting precedents, holding that objections under Section 34 must show strong grounds, and upheld the finality of awards where jurisdictional challenges were untimely. The judgment clarifies that the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Act 1983, does not automatically override arbitration agreements unless jurisdictional objections are raised at the appropriate stage. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Gayatri Projects Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation regarding road construction works in Madhya Pradesh. The parties...

Civil Dispute, Not Crime: SC Quashes FIR Against Businessman Calls It a Contract Issue

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR alleging cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), holding that unpaid export transactions constituted a civil dispute, not a criminal offense. The Court emphasized that mere breach of contract, without dishonest intent at inception, cannot attract criminal liability. It ruled that the exporter (M/s. Oswal Overseas), not the accused, was the entrusted party, and the complainant failed to establish fraudulent inducement or entrustment under Sections 405/415 IPC. The judgment reaffirmed that criminal proceedings cannot remedy purely contractual disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a business dispute between Ashok Kumar Jain (appellant), director of a Sri Lankan export-import firm, and a Gujarat-based textile trader...