Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In these three applications, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996") the same petitioner has challenged three awards, all dated December 11, 2017 made by the sole Arbitrator in three separate arbitral proceedings between same parties as mentioned hereinafter.

With consent of the parties all the three applications are decided by this common judgment, inasmuch all the three awards made by the same Arbitrator in arbitral proceeding between the same parties are identical in terms except that the dates of the arbitration agreements and the amounts involved therein are different. In all the three arbitral proceedings, the respondent and the petitioner herein were the claimant and the respondent, respectively. By the award dated December 11, 2017 which has been challenged by the petitioner in the first application, namely A.P. No. 346 of 2017, the Arbitrator has directed the present petitioner to pay Rs. 60,09,18,356/- and costs of Rs. 50, 00,000/- , within 30 days to the present respondent, the claimant in the arbitration. By the second award dated December 11, 2017 which has been challenged by the present petitioner in the second application, A.P. No. 343 of 2018, the Arbitrator has directed the present petitioner to pay Rs. 89,94,06,575/- and costs of Rs. 50,00,000/-, within 30 days, to the present respondent, the claimant in the arbitration. By the third award dated December 11, 2017, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the third application, namely, A.P. No. 345 of 2018, the Arbitrator has directed the present petitioner to pay Rs.74,02,47,944 and costs of Rs.50,00,000/-, within 30 days to the present respondent, the claimant in the arbitration. The aforementioned awarded amounts of Rs.60,09,18,356 Rs.89,94,06,575 and Rs.74,02,47,944 included pre- reference interest. The arbitral awards further directed that if the respondent, the petitioner herein failed to pay the principal amounts together with pre-reference interest and cots within 30 days from the award December 11, 2017 it would be liable to pay interest pendente lite at the rate of 16% per annum. Some typographical errors appearing in the all three awards were corrected by the Arbitrator on February 6,2018.

After the Arbitrator entered upon reference in the arbitration proceedings, the filed three separate statements of claim. In the statements of claim, the claimant claimed that in terms of the said three ICD Agreements it had deposited a Rs. 40 crores, Rs. 50 crores and Rs. 60 crores, respectively with the respondent as inter corporate deposits. The terms and conditions for repayment of the said inter corporate deposits were stipulated under the respective ICD Agreement. Since the respondent, in spite of demands did not make refund of any of the said inter corporate deposits the claimant claimed awards against the respondent in each of the arbitration proceeding for recovery of the said sum of Rs.40 crores, Rs.50 crores and Rs.60 crores, respectively with interest and ancillary reliefs. In the statement of claim filed in the respective arbitral proceeding the claimant disclosed the relevant ICD Agreement based on which it claimed the awards against the respondent.

On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent contended that the impugned awardsss made by the Arbitrator do not suffer from any infirmity constituting any ground for interference by this Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. It was argued that the disputes between the present petitioner and the respondent-claimant arose in relation to three separate ICD Agreements dated January 16, 2012, January 27, 2012 and March 29, 2012 respectively, whereunder the respondent advanced an aggregate amount of Rs.140 crore to the petitioner. The arbitration proceedings were held in repect of the said three ICD Agreements which culminated in passing of the three separate arbitraral awards allowing the claims of the claimant, the respondent herein under each of the three agreements. It was submitted that the present petitioner, as the respondent in the arbitration proceedings admitted all the basic facts urged by the present respondent in the arbitration proceedings in support of its case, namely (i) that the the parties had entered into three written ICD Agreements; (ii) the receipt of the amounts by the present petitioner from the respondent under the said three ICD Agreements; (iii) the liability to repay the principal sum under the ICD Agreements along with interest at agreed rates; and (iv) that the amounts under the ICD Agreements were not repaid by the present petitioner to the respondent claimant. In spite of such admissions the petitioner sought to resist the respondent's claim in the arbitration proceedings for payment under the said ICD Agreements before the learned Arbitrator on the basis of a purported oral agreement under which it was entitled to set off its entire liability in respect of the three ICD Agreements against a debt that the petitioner claimed was due to it from a third party, a company named Unitech Ltd. It was submitted by the respondent that considering the defence put up by the present petitioner in the arbitral proceedings on the basis of an oral agreement, as recorded in the impugned awardsss the Arbitrator was of the opinion that the key factual issue in the arbitration was "Whether there was such an oral agreement is a battle ground and only issue in this proceeding". According to the present respondent, when the execution of the three ICD Agreements between the parties herein and the receipt of the amounts under each of the said agreements by the petitioner are admitted facts, the burden of proof wholly lied on the petitioner to prove its case of the alleged oral agreement and the petitioner chose to tender oral evidence and produced the sole witness, namely Mr. Ganesh Bagree, a senior Vice-President. It was submitted that the Arbitrator after hearing the parties at length and weighing and appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary allowed the claims of the claimant, the respondent herein against the present petitioner. The Arbitrator held that every stage of evidence of the sole witness of the petitioner reveals inconsistency, contradictions and incredulity. The petitioner in its applications under Section 16 of the Act of 1996, as well as in the counter statements filed before the Arbitrator asserted that the oral agreement relied upon by it was allegedly reached at a face to face meeting between Ajay Chandra, Rajiv Virmani and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, the last two being senior officers of Unitech Ltd. on the one hand and Ganesh Prasad Bagree representing the petitioner on the other hand. In flat contradiction to such case, as found by the Arbitrator the sole witness of the petitioner under cross-examination stated that the alleged oral agreement was between him and Ajay Chandra only and that too by way of telephonic conversion. Accordingly, the Arbitrator was absolutely correct in his finding in the impugned awardsss that there is a clear discrepancy between the two versions as to when such oral agreement was made and such cannot be interfered with. It was further urged that when the present petitioner failed to prove the existence of the oral agreeemnt, the sheet anchor of its defence, the decision of the Arbitrator in each of the arbitral proceeding allowing the respondent claimant's claim by disbelieving the sole witness of the petitioner and repelling the defence sought to be put up by the petitioner on the basis of the alleged oral agreement between the parties is not vitiated by any error or infirmity.

In view of above, the reference made by the present petitioner to other documents forming part of the records of the applications under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and the arguments advanced on the basis thereof have no significance or merit.

For all the foregoing reasons, neither any finding of the Arbitrator nor his decisions allowing the claims of the present respondent, being the claimant in each of the three arbitral proceeding A.P. No.126 of 2016, A.P no.127 of 2016 and A.P. No. 129 of 2016 suffers from no infirmity or illegality. The Arbitrator was absolutely right to reject the counter claims of the present petitioner in the three arbitral proceedings. In the facts of the present case, as discussed above, in the cases of Western Capital GECO International Ltd. (supra), Associate Builders (supra) and K.P. Poulose (supra) are of no assistance to the petitioner.