The Supreme Court (SC) has set aside the order of the Orissa high court appointing an arbitrator in the dispute between BSNL and a works contractor. According to the terms of the contract, if a dispute arose, the chief engineer, telecommunications, was to be the sole arbitrator. The contractor, Dhanurdhar, repeatedly asked the authorities to appoint an arbitrator, but they did not. Therefore, he moved the high court. It appointed an arbitrator other than the Chief Engineer or his nominee. BSNL therefore appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the appointment of a person other than the Chief Engineer was against the arbitration clause. The Supreme Court accepted the BSNL contention.
Offers for slum clearance
The SC has asked the slum development authority of Mumbai to consider the offers of two developers, Keya Developers and Construction Ltd and Sigtia Developers, and decide again their applications for issuance of the letter of intent for the slum clearance project. The court had passed an order in 2006, but when the matter was taken up in the Bombay high court, it gave an order giving preference to Sigtia Developers. The SC clarified that the high court erred in understanding its order and asked the authority to decide according to its order.
Defining ‘unprotected workers’
The SC has dismissed a large number of appeals filed by industrial units in Mumbai which employ ‘unprotected workers’ in the case, Century Textiles and Industries vs Grocery Markets. The Maharashtra Mathadi & Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act was meant to help labourers unprotected by labour laws. It provided for welfare and health of manual workers called to work by factories and other employers without any security of employment or wages. The question arose in the Bombay high court over the ‘unprotected workers’ defined in the Act.
Two benches differed on the interpretation of the high court earlier. So the issue was referred to the full bench of the high court. Dissatisfied with its decision, the employers approached the SC. It upheld the wider definition of ‘unprotected workers’ given by the full bench of the high court.
Warehousing corp vs Fortpoint Auto
A full bench of the Bombay high court has ruled in the case, Central Warehousing Corporation vs Fortpoint Automative Ltd, that small causes courts in Mumbai has jurisdiction in the case of arbitration between a licensor and a licencee. This was so under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Court’s powers on award
In another judgement on arbitration, the full bench of the same high court ruled that the court has discretion under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside an award partly or wholly depending on the facts and circumstances of the given case. The legislature has vested wide discretion on the court to set aside an award wholly or partly, the judgement said in the case, R S Jiwani vs Ircon International.
Foreign award upheld
The Delhi high court has dismissed the petition, Jindal Exports Ltd vs Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd, and upheld the foreign award made in England. The high court stated that it was not necessary in law for the foreign award made in England to have been confirmed by an English court prior to its enforcement in India. The Indian company had contracted to supply menthol crystals to the foreign firm, but could not supply it on time. Following disputes, the foreign company nominated its arbitrator under the International General Produce Association Rules, but the Indian company did not nominate anyone. The awards were made against Jindal and this was challenged in the high court on various grounds.
