Bombay High Court Hears Section 34 Petition Against Arbitral Awards in Information Technology Upgrade Contract Dispute. Petition Challenges Awards Granting Refund and Rejecting Counter Claims.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by CMC Limited (original respondent in the arbitration) impugning the arbitral awards dated 7 February 2008 and 3 November 2009. The dispute arose out of an agreement dated 23 October 1992 between CMC Limited and Unit Trust of India for an Information Technology Upgrade Project comprising various application groups including AG-2. Unit Trust of India unilaterally abandoned the AG-2 project and demanded a refund of amounts paid. The arbitral tribunal was constituted after an application under Section 11. In its award dated 3 November 2009, the tribunal directed CMC Limited to pay Rs.83,45,500 with interest at 9% p.a. to Unit Trust of India and awarded costs; the tribunal also rejected the counter claims made by CMC Limited. The earlier order dated 7 February 2008 under Section 16 partly upheld the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the counter claims. CMC Limited challenged both awards in the present petition, arguing that the contract was not indivisible and that the abandonment of one module did not affect others. The petition was heard and judgment reserved. [The provided text is incomplete; the court’s analysis and final decision are not included.]

Issue of Consideration

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.275 OF 2012

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 61

Arbitration Petition No.275 of 2012

2015-02-06

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

2015:BHC-OS:1811

Ms. Alpana Ghone, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Ms. Bhairavi Pathak, Ms. J. Shah, M/s. I.R. Joshi & Co. for the petitioner; Mr. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mohit Arora, Ms. Pinky Patel, M/s. Desai & Diwanji for the respondent.

CMC Limited

Unit Trust of India

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

Nature of Litigation

Arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging arbitral awards.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner (CMC Limited) seeks setting aside of arbitral awards dated 7 February 2008 and 3 November 2009.

Filing Reason

The arbitral tribunal allowed some claims of the respondent (Unit Trust of India) for refund of amounts paid and rejected the petitioner's counter claims.

Previous Decisions

Arbitral awards dated 7 February 2008 (on jurisdiction under Section 16) and 3 November 2009 (final award) were passed by the arbitral tribunal.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the contract was not indivisible, each application group was independent with separate payment milestones, and abandonment of one module did not affect others.

Judgment Excerpts

there being a separate amount earmarked for each module, separate system of billing, separate amount fixed for application AG-2, separate provision for testing of each application, separate acceptance certificate, separate defect liability period and separate payment for each group would clearly indicate that the contract awarded to the petitioner was not an indivisible contract

Procedural History

The respondent issued a notice of arbitration on 16 May 2002. The arbitral tribunal was constituted after an application under Section 11. Statement of claim filed on 31 July 2007. The arbitral tribunal passed an order dated 7 February 2008 on jurisdiction under Section 16, and final award on 3 November 2009. The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 34 challenging both awards.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 11, 16, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Hears Section 34 Petition Against Arbitral Awards in Information Technology Upgrade Contract Dispute. Petition Challenges Awards Granting Refund and Rejecting Counter Claims.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Order 7 Rule 11 Application in Suit for Recovery — Limitation is a Mixed Question of Fact and Law Not Decided at Threshold. Plaint Averments Show Cause of Action Arose in 2010, Suit Filed Wi...