1) M/s Nussli (Swtizerland) Ltd. Vs. Organizing Commit. Commonwealth Game. 2010, dated 11th April, 2012
2) N. Radhakrishnan Vs. Maestro Engineers & Ors., Supreme Court (not correct)
3) Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors
4) India Household and Healthcare Ltd. Vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd.
5) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, SC
6) Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust & Anr.
7) SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd
8) Reva Electric Car Company Private Limited Vs. Green Mobil [(2012) 2 SCC 93]
The issue regarding the continued existence of the arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the main agreement itself being declared void, was considered by the 7-Judge Bench in SBP & Co. (supra) and it was held that an arbitration agreement could stand independent of the main agreement and did not necessarily become otiose, even if the main agreement, of which it is a part, is declared void.
..........reasoning was adopted by a member of this Bench (S.S. Nijjar, J.), while deciding the case of Reva Electric Car Company Private Limited Vs. Green Mobil [(2012) 2 SCC 93], wherein the provisions of Section 16(1) in the backdrop of the doctrine of kompetenz kompetenz were considered and it was inter alia held that under Section 16(1), the legislature makes it clear that while considering any objection with regard to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, the arbitration clause, which formed part of the contract, had to be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. Reference was made in the said judgment to the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the 1996 Act, which provides that even if the arbitral tribunal concludes that the contract is null and void, it should not result, as a matter of law, in an automatic invalidation of the arbitration clause. It was also held that Section 16(1)(a) of the 1996 Act presumes the existence of a valid arbitration clause and mandates the same to be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. By virtue of Section 16(1)(b) of the 1996 Act, the arbitration clause continues to be enforceable, notwithstanding a declaration that the contract was null and void.
2) N. Radhakrishnan Vs. Maestro Engineers & Ors., Supreme Court (not correct)
3) Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors
4) India Household and Healthcare Ltd. Vs. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd.
5) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, SC
6) Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust & Anr.
7) SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd
8) Reva Electric Car Company Private Limited Vs. Green Mobil [(2012) 2 SCC 93]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 34 OF 2013
Swiss Timing Limited
…Petitioner
Versus
Organising Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010, Delhi. ….Respondent
The issue regarding the continued existence of the arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the main agreement itself being declared void, was considered by the 7-Judge Bench in SBP & Co. (supra) and it was held that an arbitration agreement could stand independent of the main agreement and did not necessarily become otiose, even if the main agreement, of which it is a part, is declared void.
..........reasoning was adopted by a member of this Bench (S.S. Nijjar, J.), while deciding the case of Reva Electric Car Company Private Limited Vs. Green Mobil [(2012) 2 SCC 93], wherein the provisions of Section 16(1) in the backdrop of the doctrine of kompetenz kompetenz were considered and it was inter alia held that under Section 16(1), the legislature makes it clear that while considering any objection with regard to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, the arbitration clause, which formed part of the contract, had to be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. Reference was made in the said judgment to the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the 1996 Act, which provides that even if the arbitral tribunal concludes that the contract is null and void, it should not result, as a matter of law, in an automatic invalidation of the arbitration clause. It was also held that Section 16(1)(a) of the 1996 Act presumes the existence of a valid arbitration clause and mandates the same to be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. By virtue of Section 16(1)(b) of the 1996 Act, the arbitration clause continues to be enforceable, notwithstanding a declaration that the contract was null and void.
27. I am of the
opinion that whenever a plea is
taken to avoid
arbitration on the
ground that the underlying
contract is void, the Court is required to ascertain the
true nature of the
defence. Often, the terms
“void” and “voidable”
are confused and used
loosely and interchangeably with
each other. Therefore, the Court ought to examine
the plea by keeping
in mind the relevant statutory
provisions in the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, defining the
terms “void” and “voidable”.........
Comments
Post a Comment