Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Raj 4.2 He further submitted that the impugned ex parte Kumar award ought to be set aside u/s 34 (2) (iv) of The Arbitration and Tripathi Conciliation Act, 1996 as the respondent has clubbed the claims 16:53:05 +0530 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 5 of 16 under all the four agreements and has sought for a composite award for the sum of Rs.78,78,533/- with an interest. He further argued that from the impugned award, it is not possible to discern which part of the award pertains to which corresponding agreement and the impugned award has erroneously clubbed together all the arbitration agreements. He further submitted that the award is unreasoned as lies no basis for awarding the claim and respondent's claim has been wrongfully admitted. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon Duro Felguera S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd. (2017) 9 SC 729 & Padam Chand Kothari v. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the dispute is very well arbitrable as the agreements are neither backdated nor fabricated. The original agreements have already been duly examined by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sealdah in T.S. No.189/2012. He further argued that petitioner had notice of arbitration proceedings yet actively restrained from participating therein.

6.6 Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law in mind, the issue wise findings are given as under:-

Issue no.(1)

7.1 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had never signed the alleged agreements and the same are forged and fabricated. Further, the agreements are backdated and products of fraud, and thus, rendering the dispute non- arbitrable. He further argued that the arbitration clause cannot exist in the absence of the agreement, whereby the appointment of learned Sole Arbitrator was also on the basis of a non-existent arbitration agreement.

Raj Kumar 7.3 Having considered the rival submissions of both the Tripathi parties and on perusal of material on record, this Court finds that Date: 2025.09.23 OMP (COMM.) No.33/2020 16:53:32 +0530 (Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. vs. Quippo Infrastructure Ltd.) Page No. 9 of 16 the agreements dated 01.08.2010, 02.10.2010, 19.03.2011 and 14.04.2011 are neither fabricated/backdated nor are the products of fraud.

7.4 In para no.31 of the petition (Annexure-P5), petitioner has stated that on 11.06.2012, it filed a suit bearing TS No.189/2012 in the Civil Court (Junior Division), Sealdah claiming the reliefs as mentioned in para no.(a) to (g). In the said suit, respondent filed an application u/s 5 and 8 of the Act with prayer for invocation of the arbitration clause and to return the plaint to petitioner. On 26.05.2014, the learned Court allowed the application of respondent with a direction to return the plaint. 7.5 A bare perusal of order dated 26.05.2014 passed in Civil Suit bearing TS No.189/2012 shows that the learned Civil Judge has examined the agreements in question. The learned Civil Judge has categorically decided the issue at hand as to the genuineness of the arbitration agreements and had found no discrepancies in the agreements those could corroborate with the contentions of the petitioner, that the agreements are products of fraud and backdated. The relevant paragraphs of the order of learned Civil Judge is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

7.6 In the instant petition, petitioner has alleged the non- existence of arbitration agreement and that the agreements are fabricated, backdated and products of fraud without any cogent and substantial reasoning or explanation as to how the alleged fabrication took place. Additionally, it is apposite to observe that the same issue has already been decided in entirety by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sealdah in TS No.189/2022. Thus, by application of doctrine of res judicata, petitioner is stopped from raising the same issue time and again.