9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Arbitrators 2. Public Policy and Public Interest 3. Nature of the Agreement (Leave and Licence vs. Business Centre Services) 4. Award of Interest by the Arbitrators Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Arbitrators: The appellant challenged the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the agreement, which contained the arbitration clause, was essentially a leave and licence agreement, making the appellant a tenant protected under the Bombay Rent Act. The appellant contended that disputes related to recovery of possession or licence fee should be exclusively handled by the Small Causes Court under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act or Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. The court noted that the appellant did not raise the jurisdictional issue during the arbitral proceedings as required by Section 16 of the Act. The Chamber Summons to amend the petition to include this ground was dismissed as it was filed after the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) had expired. The court held that the Chamber Summons was rightly dismissed and that the jurisdictional objection could not be entertained after the prescribed period. 2. Public Policy and Public Interest: The appellant argued that the arbitration award was in conflict with public policy, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., which emphasized the protection of tenants under the Bombay Rent Act as a matter of public policy. The court, however, found that the appellant, being a landlord, could not claim the protection intended for tenants. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., which discussed the narrow view of public policy in the context of arbitration. The court concluded that the arbitration award did not violate public policy or public interest in India. 3. Nature of the Agreement: The appellant contended that the agreement was, in essence, a leave and licence agreement, despite being labeled as a "business centre services" agreement. The court examined the agreement and found that it explicitly stated that no tenancy, licence, or protected right was created. The court held that the appellant failed to provide extrinsic evidence to prove that the agreement was different from what it appeared to be on its face. The arbitral tribunal had rightly concluded that the agreement was what it purported to be, and the court found no reason to interfere with this finding. 4. Award of Interest by the Arbitrators: The appellant challenged the interest awarded by the arbitrators, arguing that the Interest Act, 1978, limited the rate of interest to the current rate of interest, which was lower than the rates awarded (16.5% per annum from 20th September 1996 till the date of the award, and 18% per annum thereafter). The court noted that the 1996 Act provided the arbitral tribunal with the discretion to award interest at a reasonable rate, and the tribunal had referred to the Interest Act only to determine the point from which the deposit would fetch interest. The court held that the arbitral tribunal was justified in awarding interest from the date the deposit became refundable and found no reason to interfere with the award. Conclusion: The court dismissed both appeals, upholding the arbitration award. The appellant's objections regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, public policy, the nature of the agreement, and the award of interest were all rejected. The court also dismissed the Chamber Summons and quantified the costs of both appeals at Rs. 10,000.
|
