Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Appellant did not challenge the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal, since, as submitted by Mr. Setalvad, appellant was anyways given a chance to rectify the defect.

Other than Mr. Setalvad, Mr. Sharan Jagtiani and Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, none of the other counsel made any submissions.

9 Mr. Setalvad submitted as under:

(a) The defect in the board resolution is a procedural defect and is curable.
(b) The Arbitral Tribunal has held that there was defect in the board resolution but has also held that such a defect was curable and accordingly gave appellant the opportunity to prove that the board resolution was valid under BVI laws or file a fresh resolution. These directions were passed by considering and keeping with the settled position in law as laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts including this court.

(w) The Arbitral Tribunal has not exercised any equitable jurisdiction. The Arbitral Tribunal has only applied the law when a document is filed by a company without the board resolution or a defective board resolution, it is

31. 2019 SCC Online Bom 3920 Meera Jadhav 16/38 COMAPL-36947-22.doc a procedural defect which is not fatal and must be permitted to be cured. 10 Mr. Sharan Jagtiani submitted as under:

(j) In the circumstances, the appeal has to be dismissed. 11 Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, in addition to adopting the submissions of Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, submitted as under:

(a) The Arbitral Tribunal having held that the resolution based on which Sunil Jain signed the pleadings was illegal on the basis of the substantive law applicable in India, which is the applicable law governing the arbitration, could not have given the liberty to cure the defect.
(b) Sunil Jain was the only fact witness deposing on behalf of appellant and the resolution relied upon by him having been held as not proved, the resolution becomes inadmissible in evidence and no part of the award can be based upon an inadmissible document under the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The issue is purely one of substance and not procedure which is incapable of being cured in the manner in which it is sought to be by the Arbitral Tribunal.

29 The Arbitral Tribunal shall endeavour to fix the date for proceeding with the arbitral proceedings at its earliest convenience. 30 Our findings above will squarely apply to Commercial Appeal (L) No.37275 of 2022, which was also filed impugning the same order and judgment dated 1st November 2022. Consequently, Commercial Appeal (L) No.37275 of 2022 and interim application (l) No.38730 of 2022 also stand disposed.

31 Mr. Sharan Jagtiani prays for stay of the judgment. Stay refused.