Latest News

M/s. Jones Foundation Private Ltd. Vs. M/s. G4S Secure Solutions (India) Private Ltd

M/s. Jones Foundation Private Ltd. Vs. M/s. G4S Secure Solutions (India) Private Ltd.[i]

Facts of the Case

JFPL is a real estate construction company, building, etc. sector, and 'G4S Security' is in the protection and control service industry. The two companies engaged in a contract.

That being said agreement was supposed to be for a term of 1 year; that said agreement was for the provision of protection facilities for 2 JFPL worksites, both of which are in Tamil Nadu. The said agreement has an arbitration provision as Clause 42 under Part XI. JFPL ended the agreement with a null notice of termination dated 09.05.2017, culminating in arbitral conflicts between the two sides. The current Court via a judgment marked 24.08.2018, designated a retired Hon'ble Judge of the current Court as the single adjudicator on the arbitral panel for said dispute, who established the arbitral tribunal referred to, commenced the arbitration proceedings amongst the parties, and awarded the contested award.

That G4S Security's argument to the  Arbitral Tribunal was, amongst others, for a cumulative sum of Rs.32,48,582/-with interests that is equivalent to basically 14 receipts for the varying amounts of money charged by G4S Security for that agreement; JFPL rendered a counter-claim in the amount of Rs.48,60,000/-with interests which in the eyes of JFPL, is in support of damages incurred by it on behalf of the supposed shortfall in service from the respondent. The arbitral tribunal accepted the Respondent G4S's claim partially and also denied and rejected the plaintiff's claim fully. There were both oral (in form of a witness) and documented evidence in front of the arbitral tribunal.

The present case in the Hon’ble Court is an appeal to the aforesaid impugned award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award itself and also that the arbitral tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator ha flouted rules of the said Act.

The judgment of the Court

On a close review of the conclusions of Arbitral Tribunal, the Court is not in a position to persuade that the opinion held by the Honourable Arbitrator is inconceivable. Simply put, this is a reasonable theory. As soon as it is reasonable, there really is no provision for judicial interference under Section 34 of the said Act. Overall it is difficult to look into the facts of the case again. In order for the plaintiff of the complaint under Section 34 to proceed, he/she must be able to show with consistency and precision that the position shared by the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to the contested award is unforgivable. The next argument pointed out by the opposing lawyer is about the amount and content of this appeal is that the Arbitral Tribunal has reported a conclusion that there have been lapses on the side of the Respondent, but that it has agreed to support the G4S Security argument. What is important is that Arbitral Tribunal has allowed Respondent's arguments relating to the quality of the services rendered up to the termination date. That there were lapses and the invoices for service already rendered have been seen by AT as two independent issues and that AT has come to a conclusion on the basis of the evidence before it that G4S Security is entitled to the invoices raised as per said contract up to date of termination, is not an implausible view. 


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. 

  • Section 34, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  • M/s. Jones Foundation Private Ltd. Vs. M/s. G4S Secure Solutions (India) Private Ltd
  • Arbitration

BY : Krish Jain

All Latest News