Reaffirmation of Doctrine “Kompetenz-Kompetenz”- Illumination on “Anti Arbitration Injunction“

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...
King Stubb & Kasiva Advocates & Attorneyshttps://ksandk.com
King Stubb & Kasiva is one of the leading law firms with PAN India presence. KSK represents a large number of Indian business houses, multinational corporations, banking & financial institutions, small, medium & large Indian and International companies and start-ups across the country.

Follow us

The Hon’ble Justice Rajiv Sahai of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the judgment dated March 3, 2020, in the matter of Bina Modi and others v. Lalit Modi “rejected suit granting the anti-arbitration injunction and reaffirmed the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.” The Doctrine has taken a wide range of popularity in the area of Arbitration, the doctrine confirms power to the Arbitral Tribunal to determine its jurisdiction, by setting the boundaries in regard to the interference of the Courts in the Arbitration process.

Factual Matrix 

A Trust Deed dated 9th April 2014 was executed at London between Mr. K K Modi (Settlor/Managing Trustee) and Bina Modi, Charu Modi, Lalit Modi, and Samir Modi (Trustees) under the name called K K Modi Family Trust. Clause 36 of Trust Deed provided the dispute resolution Clause to resolve the disputes with an amicable settlement.

The relevant portion of Clause 36 of the Trust deed is read as follows:

“In case the dispute or the breach continues for a period more than 90 days, then all such dispute shall be settled under the rules of Arbitration of the international Chambers of Commerce (ICC) by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules. The Arbitration will be governed in accordance with the laws of India and ICC will follow Indian Law as substantive Law for deciding any dispute arising between the parties under/pursuant to this Deed.”

After the demise of K K Modi, the dispute arose between the Trustees regarding the management of the Trust properties. Mr. Lalit Modi (Defendant) one of the trustees has addressed the letter to other trustees conveying the meeting in regard to the discussion of trust properties. During the time of the meeting, there was a disagreement regarding the interpretation of the clauses of Trust Deed. In light of the same, one of the trustees, Mr. Lalit Modi invoked Clause 36 of the deed by filing an application before International Chambers of Commerce (ICC), Singapore. Meanwhile, in respect of the arbitration proceedings initiated in Singapore, the other trustees, filed an anti-arbitration injunction suit, seeking restraining orders against the proceedings stating that the arbitration proceeding is against the Public policy of India.

Question Of Law 

The Hon’ble Court considered the following Question of Law:

  1. Whether “Anti Arbitration Injunction suit” filed in India maintainable?

The contention of the Parties

The learned counsels appearing on behalf of Bina Modi, Samir Modi, and Charu Modi (Plaintiff) contended that Clause 36 of the Trust Deed is unenforceable and contrary to the public policy of India. Senior Counsel, Mukul Rohatgi drew the attention of the Court to the following facts:

  • The assets of the trust deed are situated in Delhi.
  • The Plaintiff and the Defendant are residents of Delhi.
  • The defendant had approached ICC, just to evade the proceeding at Delhi.
  • Therefore, the procedure and substantial law of the land to be applied.

Further counsel relied upon Vimal Kishor Shah Vs. Jayesh Dinesh Shah, Vidya Drolia & Ors. Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, Mcdonald’s India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vikram Bakshi,  Union of India Vs. Vodafone Group PLC United Kingdom, that made it clear that there is no bar for granting an injunction from restraining the defendant to proceed with arbitration proceedings.

On the contrary, the learned senior counsel for Lalit Modi contended that Section 8 of the Arbitration Act applies only to domestic arbitration and not international arbitration. This being International arbitration, the principles drawn in the judgment referred by opposite learned counsel don’t apply in the present case. He further relied upon Bharti Tele-Ventures Ltd. Vs. DSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Roshan Lal Gupta Vs. Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs. Dunavant SA, Shree Krishna Vanaspati Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Virgoz Oils & Fats Pte Ltd., M. Sons Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Jagasia and Ashok Kalra Vs. Akash Paper Board Pvt. Ltd., and contended that the suit for declaration of invalidity of arbitration proceedings and for a permanent injunction to restrain arbitration is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

Observation and Judgement

The Hon’ble High Court further illuminated the doctrine of ”Kompetenz-Kompetenz” wherein, Court made it clear that the principles governing anti injunction suits are not applicable to anti-arbitration injunction suits. Further, Court contended that Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act,1963 bars court from granting an injunction in cases where an alternate efficacious remedy is available and in the present case Section 16 of Arbitration Act, 1996 provides the efficacious remedy.

In light of the above, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rejected the suit granting anti-arbitration injunction and directed the parties to resolve the dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal, inclusive of the non-arbitrability disputes arising out of trust deed.  

The appeal filed by Plaintiff is pending before the division bench of Delhi High Court, however, the bench granted the stay order in favor of Plaintiff on 5th March 2020. Challenging the stay order, Defendant has filed a Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and the same was dismissed.

Conclusion

The present decision of Hon’ble Court sets out clear boundaries as to interference of the courts in the arbitration proceedings. Further, the Court succeeded to uphold the fundamental doctrine of arbitration “Kompetenz-Kompetenz” and cleared the scope of the anti-arbitration injunction suit. However, the present judgment delivered a positive impact on growing arbitration proceedings.


Priyanka Ajjannavar

This article is written by Priyanka Ajjannavar, Associate at King Stubb & Kasiva


 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -