Arbitration Petition No. 1353 of 2015. Case: Dr. Anjana Singh Vs M/s. Metropolis Healthcare Limited. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberArbitration Petition No. 1353 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Jain i/by Mr. Karan Vyas, Advs. and For Respondents: Mr. Rohan Cama a/w Mr. Ashraf Patel i/by M/s. K. Ashar & Co.
JudgesR. D. Dhanuka, J.
IssueArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34; Companies Act, 1956
Judgement DateJune 15, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

  1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 8th April 2015 rendered by the arbitral tribunal allowing the claim made by the respondent and dismissing the counter claim filed by the petitioner. The respondent has not impugned any part of the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:-

  2. On 19th July 2008, the parties recorded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Pursuant to the said MOU, the Joint Venture Company i.e. Metropolis Clinical Diagnostics (Bihar) Pvt. Ltd. came to be incorporated on the terms and conditions recorded therein.

  3. On 7th November 2008, the petitioner as well as the respondent and the said joint venture company entered into a Business Transfer Agreement as contemplated under the terms of the MOU. Under the said writing, the petitioner had agreed to pay various amounts to the respondent. The petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1.04 crores directly to the respondent. The petitioner also undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 18.11 lacs on behalf of the joint venture company to the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that pursuant to the said writing executed between the parties, the petitioner issued two cheques of Rs.50 lacs each in favour of the respondent which were dishonored. The dispute arose between the parties and was referred to arbitration.

  4. The respondent filed a statement of claim before the arbitral tribunal which was resisted by the petitioner. On 8th April 2015, learned arbitrator made an award directing the petitioner to pay various amounts to the respondent. This award is impugned by the petitioner in this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

  5. Mr.Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that two cheques of Rs.50 lacs each which were issued by the petitioner were under pressure and coercion. He submits that the signature of the petitioner on the Exit MOU was obtained by the respondent under pressure. He submits that the petitioner had not signed the letter dated 28th August 2009 which was alleged to have been forwarded by the petitioner along with two cheques of Rs.50 lacs each. He submits that though the signature of the petitioner was disputed on letter dated 28th August 2009 alleged to have been addressed by the petitioner, the arbitral tribunal has proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had not disputed the existence of the said letter dated 28th August 2009. He submits that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT