Case Note & Summary
The judgment originates from a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Securitrans India Private Limited, seeking to set aside an arbitral award dated 3 May 2023 passed by a sole arbitrator. The petitioner, an ATM cash replenishment service provider, had entered into agreements with the respondent, FIS Payment Solutions and Services Private Limited, for providing cash withdrawal and replenishment services at ATM centers. Disputes arose over unpaid invoices for services rendered under the 2015 agreement amounting to Rs. 25,05,79,968, and alleged cash loading discrepancies at several ATMs totaling Rs. 23,26,05,022, leading to claims and counterclaims in arbitration. The factual background details that the parties executed agreements in 2010 and 2015; the petitioner raised invoices that remained unpaid, and the respondent alleged cash shortages due to actions of the petitioner’s employees, resulting in Bank of India adjusting amounts from the respondent. After exchange of emails and meetings, both sides invoked arbitration. Initially, separate panels were proposed, but by consent order dated 9 December 2019, a sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate disputes under both agreements. The petitioner’s application under Section 16 challenging jurisdiction was dismissed. The sole arbitrator passed a common award granting the petitioner Rs. 25,05,79,968 with interest at 18% per annum, and the respondent Rs. 23,26,05,022 with interest, subject to adjustment of an ad‑hoc payment of Rs. 2 crores and Rs. 35,000 towards invoices. The petitioner, aggrieved by the award of the respondent’s counterclaim, filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The reported text of the judgment only narrates the factual matrix and procedural history; it does not contain any legal submissions, analysis, or the court’s decision on the petition. Consequently, the reasoning and final outcome remain unstated in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 750 OF 2024
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 88
Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 750 of 2024 (with Interim Application No. 3887 of 2024)
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Samridhi Lodha, Mr. Tushad Kakalia, Mr. Hormuz Mehta, Mr. Ahsan Allana, Ms. Avantika Kadapatti i/b M/s. J. Sagar Associates for Petitioner; Mr. Soli Cooper, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yohann Cooper, Mr. Raghav Seth, Ms. Chandini Sahni i/b M/s. AZB & Partners for Respondent
Securitrans India Private Limited
FIS Payment Solutions and Services Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside an arbitral award dated 3 May 2023 that awarded a counterclaim of Rs. 23,26,05,022 to the Respondent.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks to invalidate the impugned arbitral award insofar as it awards the Respondent's counterclaim.
Filing Reason
Petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Respondent's claim of Rs. 23,26,05,022 and contends that the award is liable to be set aside.
Previous Decisions
The sole arbitrator passed a common award on 3 May 2023 in two references, awarding Petitioner Rs. 25,05,79,968 with interest, and Respondent Rs. 23,26,05,022 with interest, subject to adjustment. The arbitrator had earlier dismissed Petitioner's application under Section 16 challenging jurisdiction. The High Court had earlier disposed of petitions under Sections 9 and 11 on 9 December 2019 by consent appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under both 2010 and 2015 Agreements.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition filed under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Award of the learned Sole Arbitrator dated 3 May 2023 is sought to be invalidated.
The Tribunal has also awarded sum of Rs. 23,26,05,022/- in favour of the Respondent.
Aggrieved by the Award dated 3 May 2023, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Procedural History
Parties entered into agreements in 2010 and 2015 for ATM cash replenishment services. Disputes arose over unpaid invoices and alleged cash shortages. Both sides invoked arbitration; initially a panel of three arbitrators was contemplated. On 9 December 2019, by consent order, a sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate disputes under both agreements. Petitioner's Section 16 application was dismissed. The sole arbitrator passed a common award on 3 May 2023. Petitioner then filed the present petition under Section 34 in 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9, Section 11, Section 16, Section 34
