10 Important Judgments rendered in April, May & June, 2020

Arbitration Act

1. Quippo Construction Equipment Limited vs. Janardan Nirman Pvt. Limited, 2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 666 SC

Jurisdiction of arbitrator-waiver of right to objection. Different Agreements entered between parties at different points of time. Parties agreed that tribunals at New Delhi to have exclusive jurisdiction. There was an arbitration clause in the agreements with provision of institutional and domestic arbitration where CIAA was empowered. Only distinction is that according to one of the agreements venue was to be at Kolkata. Respondents failed to contend that in respect of agreement where venue was agreed to be at Kolkata. Respondents precluded from raising any objection as to venue of arbitration.

2. Dharamratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Madaliar Chattram vs. Bhaskar Raju & Borthers, 2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 98

When instrument containing arbitration agreement not properly stamped, it should be impounded. Court cannot act upon such document or arbitration clauses therein. However, if deficit duty and penalty is paid document can be acted upon or admitted in evidence. 

3. SSIPL Lifestyle Private Limited vs. Vama Apparels (India) Private Limited, 2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 707

Limitation period prescribed for filing application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Held, that in view of the amended language of Section 8 after enactment of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, limitation for filing written statement under non-commercial suits and under Commercial Courts act for commercial suits would be applicable for filing application under Section 8.

4. M/s National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s BSCPl Infrastructure Ltd. 2020 (1) ICC 387

Whether arbitration clause would spring into being at stage of Letter of Award acceptance or whether it would be necessary to sing ultimate agreement which would then bring in arbitration clause contained therein? Held-No, even at stage of acceptance of Letter of award, if disputed arise between parties, they cannot be resolved by arbitration.

Electricity Act, 2003

5. Bihar State Electricity Board vs. M/s Iceberg Industries Ltd., 2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 674

Electricity disconnected on account of non-payment. Company citing business connected difficulties made representation for liquidating their dues in ten monthly installments. Company also made part payments. Installment was granted subsequent to period of disconnection. Once plea for installment was accepted and agreement was entered into for clearing dues, it demonstrated willingness to pay on part of company of dues in manner acceptable to appellant board. 

Insecticides Act, 1968

6. Cheminova India Limited vs. State of Punjab, 2020 (2) RCR (Criminal) 555 (P&H)

Prosecution of directors. As per complaint and as also described in memo of parties is person responsible for quality control of firm. A person who is monitoring quality of product being manufactured by firm is key person who would be responsible for ensuring quality of product being manufactures by firm. In these circumstances other responsible persons of said company are also liable to be prosecuted on account of misbranding of insecticides in question. 

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

7. Cheminova India Limited vs. State of Punjab, 2020 (2) RCR (Criminal) 555 (P&H)

Whether by operation of provisions of IBC, criminal prosecution can be terminated? Held-No. Once insolvency professional is appointed to manage company, erstwhile directors who are no longer in management, obviously cannot maintain on behalf of company. Petition filed only by erstwhile managing director. He cannot maintain prayer for quashing entire prosecution and can confine relief to himself. Approval of resolution plan is of no avail to erstwhile director of corporate debtor. Criminal prosecution not liable to be quashed. 

Limitation Act, 1963

8. Bank of Baroda vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2020 RCR (Civil) 347

There is no concept of cause of action in so far as execution petition in concerned. Cause of action is concept relating to civil suits and not execution of decree. Therefore, filing of application under Section 44A of CPC will not create fresh period for enforcing decree. Section 44A only enables Court to execute decree and further provides that Court shall follow same procedure as it follows while executing Indian decree, but it does not lay down or indicate period of limitation for filing such execution petition.

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

9. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Mohani Devi, 2020 (2) SCT 623 (SC)

Gratuity shall be payable if the termination of employment is after 5 years of continuous service and such termination would include resignation as well. 

Architects Act, 1972

10. Council of Architecture vs. Mukesh Goyal, 2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 295 (SC)

Held, no prohibition of use of title ‘Architect’ by individuals not registered with Council of Architecture under enactment from carrying out practice of architecture and its cognate activities.