Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator in Share Acquisition Dispute — Arbitration Clause Invoked for Non-Payment of Balance Consideration. The court held that the existence of an arbitration agreement and a dispute regarding payment of Rs.1.5 Crores under the share acquisition agreements dated 14th October 2009 entitled the applicants to appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 106
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicants, Bharat Kantilal Bussa and Rita Bharat Bussa, filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute arising from two agreements dated 14th October 2009 with the respondents, Sanjana Cryogenic Storage Ltd. and others. The agreements pertained to the acquisition of 10,000 shares of M/s. RRS Mineral Resources Pvt. Ltd. by the first respondent for a total consideration of Rs.34.5 Crores. The applicants alleged that the respondents paid Rs.31.5 Crores but failed to pay the balance of Rs.1.5 Crores, which was to be kept in deposit with the company until March 2012. The agreements contained an arbitration clause (Clause 17) providing for reference of disputes to arbitration under the Act. The respondents opposed the application, but the court found that a dispute existed and that the arbitration clause was valid. The court allowed the application and appointed a retired judge of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Existence of Arbitration Clause - The court considered an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, where the parties had entered into two agreements dated 14th October 2009 containing an arbitration clause (Clause 17). The applicant claimed that the respondent failed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.1.5 Crores, leading to a dispute. The court held that since there was an arbitration agreement and a dispute existed, the applicant was entitled to appointment of an arbitrator. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, given the existence of an arbitration clause and a dispute regarding payment of balance consideration under a share acquisition agreement.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and appointed a retired judge of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

Law Points

  • Arbitration agreement
  • existence of dispute
  • appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
  • 1996
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (03) 48

Arbitration Application No. 156 of 2012

2013-03-04

R.D. Dhanuka

Mr. S.C. Naidu alongwith Mr. Sourabh Kulkarni i/by M/s. C.R. Naidu & Co. for petitioner; Mr. N. Engineer along with Mr. A. Mithe i/by M/s. Desai & Diwanji for respondent nos. 1 to 4

Bharat Kantilal Bussa and Rita Bharat Bussa

Sanjana Cryogenic Storage Ltd., Sanjay Ramavatar Goenka, Rachana Sanjay Goenka, Ramavatar Nathumal Goenka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.

Remedy Sought

Appointment of an arbitrator to resolve a dispute arising from two agreements dated 14th October 2009.

Filing Reason

Non-payment of balance consideration of Rs.1.5 Crores by the respondents under the share acquisition agreements.

Issues

Whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties? Whether a dispute has arisen between the parties warranting appointment of an arbitrator?

Submissions/Arguments

Applicants submitted that the respondents failed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.1.5 Crores as agreed, and thus a dispute exists. Respondents opposed the application, but the court found that the arbitration clause was valid and a dispute existed.

Ratio Decidendi

Where there is a valid arbitration agreement and a dispute exists between the parties, the court has the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

Judgment Excerpts

By this application filed under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant seeks appointment of an arbitrator by invoking clause 17 of the Agreement dated 14th October 2009... It is not in dispute that both these agreements were signed by the applicants and the respondents.

Procedural History

The applicants filed Arbitration Application No. 156 of 2012 under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The respondents appeared and opposed the application. The court heard the parties and delivered judgment on 4th March 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses State Appeals in Factories Act Case; Casual Piece-Rate Prawn Peeling Workers Not 'Workers' Under Section 2(1), Factories Act, 1948. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that women and girls doing piece-rate prawn ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Enhanced Compensation in Land Acquisition Case — Petitioner Entitled to Higher Compensation Under Section 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Delayed Possession. Landowner's Claim for Additional Amou...