TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a party to simply come to Court and aver coercion. For over four months after passing of the Award, and despite being well aware of the same, no objection was raised by the Petitioner herein to the effect that the Consent Terms were entered into under coercion. In fact, the matter remained pending before the learned Arbitrator only for the purpose of paying fees of the Tribunal. Even as late as on 16th July 2015 the Advocates for the Petitioner herein appeared before the learned Arbitrator and made no attempt to resile from the Consent Terms but simply sought time to seek instructions for making payment of the Arbitrator's fees. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Respondent has in fact not complied with the terms of the MOU and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner : Ms. Drishti Shah i/b. Ms. Rekha Rajagopal. For the Respondent : Mr. Rohan Cama a/w. Mr. Aniruddha Lad, Ms. Nehali Panchal i/b. BJ Law Offices LLP. ORDER P.C.: 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge an Award dated 18th March 2015 passed in terms of Consent Terms signed between the parties to the arbitration. 2. It is an admitted position that the parties were agitating their disputes before the learned Arbitrator, which disputes were eventually settled by virtue of Consent Terms executed by and between the parties on 18th March 2015. By a resolution passed by the Board of Directors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sts were not paid by the Petitioner herein, by Procedural Order Sheet No.23 dated 8th July 2015, the matter was placed for directions on 16th July 2015. On 16th July 2015, the Advocates for the Petitioner herein appeared before the Arbitrator. It is pertinent to note that at the hearing, no issue appears to have been raised as to the Consent Terms or the validity of the Award passed in terms thereof. The only submission made on behalf of the Petitioner herein was that two weeks time was required for the Advocates to take instructions from the Petitioner herein and to make payment of the fees of the learned Arbitrator. Accordingly, the matter stood adjourned to 30th July 2015. 6. It appears that on 28th July 2015, in response to an email ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent herein. 9. At the start of the hearing, Mr. Cama, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent herein raised a preliminary objection that the grounds of challenge in the Petition did not fall within the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In response, Ms.Drishti Shah, learned Advocate for the Petitioner herein has placed reliance upon Section 34 (2)(b)(ii) of the Act and the Explanation inserted by the 2015 Amendment to submit that the making of the Award was induced or effected by fraud. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties. First and foremost there is no case pleaded of fraud having been played upon the Petitioner herein while executi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, in my view, Section 34 (2)(b)(ii) of the Act will not assist the Petitioner herein. The Explanation to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) contemplates a situation where fraud is played upon the Tribunal causing the Tribunal to make an Award which is vitiated by fraud. This is very far removed from the present situation where the Petitioner herein has knowingly, with open eyes, and being fully conscious of the terms and commitments in the Consent Terms, appeared before the arbitrator and sought an Award in terms of the Consent Terms. 13. Ms. Drishti Shah, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner herein has submitted that the Consent Terms were executed by the Petitioner herein on the understanding that the Respondent herein would comply with the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|