2003 (3) TMI 540 - SC - Companies Law

Whether a Letter of Comfort furnished on the same day of a Settlement arrived at during conciliation signed by both the parties and authenticated by the Conciliators is enforceable in the same manner as an arbitration award under section 74, read with sections 30 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? Held that - Appeal dismissed. As the arbitration proceedings are pending between the parties. It is open to the appellant to avail such remedies as are available in law on the basis of Memorandum of Conciliation Agreement and Letter of Comfort by approaching competent court or raising any arbitration dispute as is permissible in law. As per section 77 of the Act, the parties shall not initiate, during the conciliation proceedings any arbitral or judicial proceedings in respect of a dispute that is the subject-matter of the conciliation proceedings except that a party may initiate arbitral or judicial proceedings where in his opinion such proceedings are necessary in preserving his rights.

Issues Involved:
1. Enforceability of the Letter of Comfort as an arbitration award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. Interpretation and binding nature of the Memorandum of Conciliation and the Letter of Comfort.
4. Termination of conciliation proceedings under Section 76 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
5. Legal status of the Memorandum of Conciliation and the Letter of Comfort as a Settlement Agreement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Enforceability of the Letter of Comfort as an arbitration award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The appellant sought to enforce the Letter of Comfort as an arbitration award under Section 74, read with Sections 30 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court dismissed the execution petition, holding that the Letter of Comfort did not constitute a decision within the meaning of Section 74 of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the Letter of Comfort, while providing an assurance for compensation, did not meet the statutory requirements to be deemed an arbitration award enforceable under Section 36 of the Act.

2. Compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
Section 73 outlines the procedure for formulating and finalizing a settlement agreement during conciliation. The Court noted that the Memorandum of Conciliation and the Letter of Comfort did not comply with all the procedural requirements of Section 73. Specifically, there was no evidence of formulation and reformulation of settlement terms by the conciliators, nor was there a final and binding settlement agreement authenticated by the conciliators as required by the Act.

3. Interpretation and binding nature of the Memorandum of Conciliation and the Letter of Comfort:
The appellant argued that the Memorandum of Conciliation and the Letter of Comfort should be treated as a binding settlement agreement. However, the Court found that the Memorandum did not incorporate the Letter of Comfort and did not specify the consequences of non-completion of the modification work or the quantum of compensation. The Court emphasized that the intent of the parties and the subsequent conduct are crucial in determining the binding nature of such documents, but in this case, the procedural and substantive requirements were not met.

4. Termination of conciliation proceedings under Section 76 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The Court observed that the conciliation proceedings were not terminated as per Section 76(a) of the Act, which requires the signing of a settlement agreement by the parties. Instead, the proceedings were merely adjourned. This indicated that no final settlement agreement was reached, further undermining the appellant's claim for enforcement under Section 36 of the Act.

5. Legal status of the Memorandum of Conciliation and the Letter of Comfort as a Settlement Agreement:
The Court concluded that neither the Memorandum of Conciliation nor the Letter of Comfort could be accorded the status of a settlement agreement under Section 73 of the Act. The documents did not satisfy the essential legal prerequisites, such as clear terms of settlement, mutual agreement on those terms, and proper authentication by the conciliators. Consequently, they could not be treated as an arbitral award under Section 30 of the Act for enforcement purposes.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the procedural requirements of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to ensure the enforceability of settlement agreements. The appellant was advised to seek remedies through arbitration or judicial proceedings as permissible under the law, given the pending arbitration proceedings between the parties.

← Previous Next →