Gujarat High Court Deprecates And Cautions Arbitrator Morris Samuel Christian's Conduct, Warns Against Impersonation And Arbitrary Proceedings; Allows Petition By GMDC Ltd

The Gujarat High Court recently allowed the writ petition filed by Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited praying for quashing and setting aside the mandate, constitution and authority of Morris Samuel Christian (respondent no.1) in relation to an Arbitration Case, with a further request to quash and set aside the ‘Final Awarding’ passed by the respondent. The bench of Justice Sangeeta K Vishen while allowing the petition observed:“the conduct on the part of the respondent no.1, is required to be deprecated. Let the respondent no.1, not befool the innocent people, invite them for conducting the arbitration proceedings and require parties to participate without any agreement between the parties appointing him as an arbitrator, and pass award without any authority. While concluding, let me place on record a word of caution to the respondent no.1 that, he shall not further indulge into the act of impersonating himself as an arbitrator and conduct arbitration proceedings at his whims and fancies.”The case originated from the issuance of work orders by the petitioner to Besto Tradelink Limited (respondent no.2) in the year 2006-07. These work orders were for the sale of non-plant grade Bauxite from the Meswana mines, which were operated by the petitioner. The contractual relationship between the petitioner and respondent no.2 ended in 2008.After a gap of more than seven years, in 2015, the petitioner received a communication requiring their presence on a specified date. The petitioner responded to this communication, expressing their reservation about the appointment of respondent no.1 as an arbitrator, stating that there was no arbitration clause in their contract.Subsequently, an "Interim Measure Award" was issued, awarding the petitioner an amount of Rs. 5,00,97,343/- along with interest. Upon receiving this award, the petitioner immediately approached the court by filing a Special Civil Application. The court issued a notice and stayed the interim order in the Arbitration Case. Later, another order was passed, confirming the stay on the proceedings before respondent no.1.However, disregarding these proceedings and in a high-handed manner, respondent no.1 issued a "Final Award," ruling in favor of respondent no.2 and against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 11,25,29,524/- to respondent no.2 within 10 days, which led to the filing of the current writ petition.SUBMISSIONSGursharan H. Virk, the advocate representing the petitioner, argued that respondent no.1, lacking jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, unilaterally influenced and conducted these arbitration proceedings. Furthermore, despite lacking jurisdiction and the restraining orders issued by the court, respondent no.1 commenced and completed the arbitration proceedings unilaterally.It was pointed out that not only does the award lack jurisdiction, but it also violates the principles of natural justice. The proceedings were initiated without any prior notice, and the procedure outlined in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 was not followed. It was further pointed out that the respondent no.1, was a habitual impersonator, who concocted the arbitration agreements when existed none and took up the arbitration proceedings at the instance of the parties with an obvious intent of deceiving the parties, who got frightened on receipt of the notices and making pay a huge arbitral fees. On the other hand, Advocate Girish Das, appearing for respondent no.1 while opposing the writ petition, submitted that the arbitration clause which forms part of a contract, shall be treated as an agreement independent of other terms of the contract. He further submitted that the petition was not maintainable as the respondent no.1, was arraigned in private capacity and not as an arbitrator and therefore. He pointed out that for the stay, separate application together with the petition challenging arbitral award is sine qua non. In absence of any such separate application, the stay granted, may not be continued inasmuch as, the same would be and against the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 36. He asserted that either for grant or for the extension there has to be a separate application together with the reasons for staying the award. While reiterating, it is submitted that in the present case, in absence of any separate application, the stay ought not to have been granted and so also the extension. Advocate Shailesh V. Raval, appearing for the respondent no.2 submitted that the final award was passed and the petitioner had been directed to make the payment. It was further submitted that there was a delay of 14 years in making the payment, which is a huge delay, and under these circumstances, the petition was not maintainable and should be dismissed.VerdictThe court, after considering the documents and previous orders, characterized the current proceedings as a clear case of perversity and...

Gujarat High Court Deprecates And Cautions Arbitrator Morris Samuel Christian's Conduct, Warns Against Impersonation And Arbitrary Proceedings; Allows Petition By GMDC Ltd

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

Gujarat High Court Deprecates And Cautions Arbitrator Morris Samuel Christian's Conduct, Warns Against Impersonation And Arbitrary Proceedings; Allows Petition By GMDC Ltd

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers