The Supreme Court last week stated that courts should not insist on technicalities in an arbitration agreement, as it would be against the spirit of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) on which it is based. In this dispute between Great Offshore Ltd and Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Company over a charter party agreement, the question was whether there was an arbitration clause. While Great Offshore sought the appointment of an arbitrator by the Supreme Court, the Iranian firm insisted that there was no concluded contract and no arbitration clause. The court, going through the correspondence between the parties, stated that it revealed that there was an agreement to arbitrate. It was not necessary to insist on stamps, seals and originals in the contract as these would enhance the role of the courts instead of minimising it. Retired Supreme Court judge S N Variava was requested to be the arbitrator in this case.
Arbitrator appointed for Indtel and WS Atkins dispute
In another international arbitration dispute between Indtel Technical Services Ltd and WS Atkins Rail Ltd, the Supreme Court appointed one of its retired judges, Justice B N Srikrishna, as the arbitrator. The two firms had agreed to collaborate on an exclusive basis for preparing and submitting their tender for work associated with designing, manufacturing and installation of Indian Railways; crashworthiness project. After the bids, the parties were invited to contact WS Atkins for contract negotiations. But the foreign firm unilaterally withdrew from the joint bid submitted to RITES Ltd, a public sector undertaking of the Railways.This led to the five-year-old legal row.
APMCs liable to pay income tax: SC
The Supreme Court has held that agricultural produce marketing committees are liable to pay income tax rejecting their claim that they were local authorities exempted from the liability by the Income Tax Act. While dismissing a batch of petitions filed by a committee in Delhi, the court clarified that after an amendment to the explanation in the Finance Act in 2002, the committee was not entitled to exemption under Section 10(20) of the Act.
Determine tariff anew: SC asks Punjab electricity regulator
More From This Section
The Supreme Court has asked the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission to determine anew the tariff for the period between 2002 and 2003. The annual cost requirement according to the electricity board was Rs 7,437 crore, while the commission allowed Rs 6,341 crore. Industrial consumers, led by Siel Ltd, challenged this in the high court and won. The board challenged the high court decision in the Supreme Court. It quashed the high court judgment and remitted the dispute to the commission.
Bombay HC judgment in contractual writ petition case set aside
The Supreme Court has stated that contractual matters should not be taken directly to the high courts in writ petitions, overruling the Bombay High Court judgment in the case, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation vs Gayatri Construction Company. The contractors in this case were allegedly told to stop work midway by the corporation, causing losses to the firm. It moved the high court. The corporation appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that it could not do so and it should go to a civil court. The Supreme Court agreed with this procedure and set aside the high court order.