Latest News
M/S Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs Pradyut Deb Burman
M/S Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs Pradyut Deb Burman
Facts:
Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. filed an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court ruled that the arbitration agreement did not exist after the performance of the agreement. Therefore, the court dismissed the arbitration petition vide order dated March 12, 2019. This decision of the Calcutta High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. Three judge bench of the Supreme Court deciding this matter did not intervene with the impugned decision but overruled the decision delivered in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antique Arts Exports Pvt. Ltd.
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antique Arts Exports Pvt. Ltd. an application was filed under S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Delhi High Court due to which an arbitrator was appointed. In this case, the judgment of the Delhi High Court to appoint an arbitrator under S.11 was challenged. The division bench in the case of United India Insurance on the decision in the case of Duro Felguera, S.A. vs. Gangavaram Port Limited, and decided that the appointment of an arbitrator is under the scope of judicial authority and not just an administrative decision giving limited extent to judicial intervention.
Issue:
Whether the judgment rendered in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antique Arts Exports Pvt. Ltd is correct in law?
Judgment:
In the case of Mayawati Trading, the court held that s.11(6A) was added by the 2015 Amendment which granted the power to the Supreme Court and High Court to consider the existence of arbitration agreement while holding the appointment of the arbitrator. However, s.11(6A) was omitted through the 2019 Amendment which has not been given effect yet. The matter of exclusion of s.11(6A) is in accordance with a High-Level Committee. The court ruled that the omission was not to revive the old statue prevailing before the Amendment Act of 2015. It was held that the law prior to the 2015 Amendment was overruled. The court perceived to disagree with the ruling in the case of United India Insurance as s.11(6A) is limited to the investigation of the arbitration agreement and is comprehended in through a limited sense as held in Duro Felguera, S.A. vs. Gangavaram Port Limited. Thus, the decision rendered in United India Insurance was overruled by the three-judge bench as to not having a correct law. The court in Mayawati Trading dismissed the appeal under Article 136 as to lack of grounds for the court to intervene.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.
- Facts
- Issue
- Judgement
