India: Bombay High Court Refuses To Grant Anti-Arbitration Injunction (Ravi Arya v Palmview Overseas)

Arbitration analysis: In a case relating to a domestic commercial arbitration, the Bombay High Court ruled that when remedies are available to the party seeking an injunction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA 1996), an antiarbitration injunction cannot be obtained to circumvent provisions of the Act. The application had been prompted by a dispute over the constitution of the tribunal. Vyapak Desai, partner and head of international litigation and dispute resolution at Nishith Desai Associates, and Bhavana Sunder and Kshama A Loya, members of the team, discuss this decision.

Ravi Arya & Ors v Palmview Overseas Ltd. & Ors, Notice of Motion (L) No 3046 of 2018 in Suit (L) No 1676 of 2018 (not reported by Lexis®Nexis UK)

What are the practical implications of this decision?

The Bombay High Court has reiterated the limits on granting antiarbitration injunctions by courts in its judgment.

It is settled law that courts in India have inherent jurisdiction to pass antisuit and antiarbitration injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in certain limited circumstances (see Modi Entertainment v WSG Cricket Pte, (2003) 4 SCC 341; Union of India vs. Vodafone Plc. and Anr, C.S. (S) 383 / 2017, High Court of Delhi, News Analysis: Delhi High Court takes a bite off Vodafone's BIT claim (India v Vodafone). In the present case, the Bombay High Court ruled that when remedies are available to the party seeking an injunction under the ACA 1996, an antiarbitration injunction cannot be obtained to circumvent provisions of the Act.

The case centres on difficulties which can arise in relation to the appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of multiple parties having a conflict of interest inter se. The court held that solutions could be found in ACA 1996, without recourse to injunctions, but the practical course of action to avoid such a situation must be to have clear language in the dispute resolution clause as to how multiple respondents having conflicting interest will nominate one arbitrator on behalf of all.

What was the background to the decision?

The Plaintiffs, Ravi Arya & Others (Ravi Arya Group) and the defendants Palmview Overseas Ltd. (Palmview) and Pawan Arya & Orthers (Pawan Arya Group) were promoters of a company, Arya Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Company). Palmview held 51% equity shareholding in the Company, while the Ravi Arya Group and the Pawan Arya Group each held 25.5% equity shareholding.

As disputes arose between Palmview, the Company, Ravi Arya Group and the Pawan Arya Group, arbitration was invoked by Palmview pursuant to a shareholders agreement between the parties ('Shareholders Agreement'). The company secretary of the Company nominated an arbitrator. Palmview appointed a second arbitrator and the two arbitrators nominated a presiding arbitrator.

The Ravi Arya Group argued that the arbitrator on behalf of the Company was appointed in collusion with Palmview, and without consulting the Ravi Arya Group. Further, the Ravi Arya Group argued that there was a special leave petition (an SLP) pending before the Supreme Court in relation to consent terms entered between the parties, and the arbitral proceedings were staged to deny the Ravi Arya Group its benefits under the consent terms.

Further, the company secretary allegedly appointed the arbitrator on behalf of the Company without the authority to do so. It was argued that a board resolution authorised the company secretary to carry out ministerial acts, and such power could not have been exercised to take unilateral decisions in appointing an arbitrator without consulting the promoter group.

These objections were raised before the arbitral tribunal. However, the tribunal held that the objections were not well founded and that the arbitral tribunal was constituted in pursuance with the procedure laid down by law and the Shareholders Agreement. The Ravi Arya Group subsequently approached the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction restraining Palmview and the Pawan Arya Group from continuing with the arbitration proceedings

What did the court decide?

The issue before the court was whether an antiarbitration injunction should be granted to restrain the arbitral proceedings when an allegation is made regarding improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The Bombay High Court held that the Ravi Arya Group had recourse under ACA 1996 itself to raise a challenge with respect to appointment of the arbitrator. Under ACA 1996, s 12, a party may challenge the appointment of an arbitrator. If such challenge fails, ACA 1996, s 13 provides that the arbitral tribunal may continue with the proceedings and make an award. However, it is open to the party to apply for setting aside such an arbitral award under ACA 1996, s 34. ACA 1996, s 34(2)(v) provides that an arbitral award may be set aside if 'the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.'

Further, the Bombay High Court added that under ACA 1996, s 16(2), a party can raise a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction. ACA 1996, s 16(6) provides that if such plea fails, the party may make an application for setting aside the arbitral award in accordance with ACA 1996, s 34.

The court further relied on ACA 1996, s 5 to state that judicial authorities must not intervene in arbitral proceedings except as provided under the ACA 1996. The Bombay High Court added that there was no provision under the ACA 1996 for the court to intervene in the present case.

The Bombay High Court concluded that the Ravi Arya Group could not obtain a relief to circumvent the provisions of the Act, and it was always open to them to raise their grievance under ACA 1996, s 34 after the arbitral award was rendered.

What are your comments on the decision?

The present case raises a critical issue of appointment of a single arbitrator by multiple parties having a conflict of interest inter se. In the instant case, the Company Secretary of Defendant No 2 Company exercised powers under a clear resolution authorising him to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the Company. In such a scenario, the allegation of one of the promoter groups that it was not consulted while making a decision on nomination, falls foul of agreement between inter se groups of a Company in vesting powers on the Company Secretary to make a nomination on behalf of the entire Company.

However, graver issues would have arisen where such authorisation would not have been clear. The rival promoter groups would then have a conflict inter se on nominating a single arbitrator. The remedy in such a scenario would not be found as easily as was found in the instant case.

Unlike as suggested in the present case, a remedy under ACA 1996, s 12 or s 13 would be misplaced. These provisions deal with challenge to the arbitrator on the ground of lack of independence of impartiality of the arbitrator. Sections 12 and 13 are triggered only when there is challenge to the arbitrator on account of bias. They will not be attracted when conflicting parties fail to be ad idem on nominating a single arbitrator on behalf of the Company in absence of clear authorisation.

ACA 1996, s 16 might be a useful remedy. However, in the event the arbitral tribunal accepts jurisdiction, the conflicting parties would have to proceed with arbitration, although onerous, and wait till an award is rendered. In such cases, the Claimant would also run the risk of a challenge to the award at the culmination of the arbitral proceedings.

Perhaps, ACA 1996, s 11 would come to the rescue of the conflicting groups. An application could be made jointly by the promoter groups to seek court assistance in nominating a single arbitrator on behalf of the Company. This would be a plausible remedy with a winwin solution for all. This would also remove the risk of challenge to the award at a later stage on the ground of improper constitution of the tribunal. In the instant case, the language of the arbitration clause and that of the board resolution (appointing the Company Secretary as a constituted attorney to appoint an arbitrator) is not available to the public. However, what appears to have weighed with the Court was the presence of an express authorisation by the Company in favour of the Company Secretary to appoint an arbitrator.

Going forward, a procedure vesting clear authority on an individual for appointment of arbitrator on behalf of a company would be a preventive course of action better than the cure of challenge to the award. It is therefore important to have clear language in the dispute resolution clause as to how multiple respondents having conflicting interest will nominate one arbitrator on behalf of all.

Originally published by Lexis®PSL Arbitration

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions