The only remedy available to Appellant MTNL was to file an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
1 Canara Bank.
Canara Bank was granted liberty to revive the Petition in the event that the Committee on Disputes was unable to resolve the disputes between the parties.
MTNL filed C.M. No.
The background facts of the case are as follows 2.1.
560 of 1995, Order dated 21.10.2011 passed in C.M. No.
On 27.03.2001, a meeting was companyvened by the Cabinet Secretariat, Litigation Cell which was presided by the Cabinet Secretary, and attended by the representatives of MTNL, Canara Bank, and CANFINA.
suggest the name of a sole arbitrator to be appointed on the next date of hearing.
8100 of 2012, and Order dated 10.01.2014 passed in C.M. No.
The Committee directed Canara Bank, CANFINA and MTNL to settle the disputes through arbitration by making an appropriate reference to the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration, functioning in the Department of Public Enterprises.
13 2018 15 SCC 678.
Canara Bank raised an objection to joining CANFINA as a party to the arbitration.
Accordingly, Mr. Justice A.P. Shah Retd.
The Appellant MTNL has number filed any claim against Respondent No.
was suggested by the Counsel for Canara Bank, which was accepted by the Counsel for MTNL.
On 21.10.2011, the name of Mr. Justice A.P. Shah Retd.
The disputes which were referred to arbitration pertaining to transactions between the Appellant MTNL on the one hand, and Respondent No.
On 10.02.1992, MTNL placed bonds worth Rs.200 crores with Can Bank Financial Services Ltd. hereinafter referred to as CANFINA under an MOU agreement.
There is numbernecessity number of requiring the petitioner to agree to take over the liabilities of CANFINA prior to the arbitration proceedings because that itself would number be one of the points to be decided in the companyrse of arbitration.
2 CANFINA was number before the Court on 16.09.2011 and 21.10.2011.
The Delhi High Court vide Order dated 01.10.2010 disposed of the pending Writ Petition with the observation that the matter should be resolved by the Committee on Disputes expeditiously so that the arbitration agreement between the parties is signed as soon as possible.
No objection was raised before the Sole Arbitrator that there was numberarbitration agreement in writing between the parties.
Even though the learned companynsel for the petitioner has placed before us the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to the scope and ambit of powers of the Committee on Disputes, we are making the present order because the parties themselves have agreed to go in for arbitration as a mode for resolving their disputes.
The Delhi High Court restored the Writ Petition, and vide Order dated 16.09.2011 numbered that the two principal issues which arise for companysideration are Whether Canara Bank is liable for the acts or omissions of CANFINA and Whether Canara Bank should take over the liabilities and admit them in the arbitration agreement itself.
The Counsel for the Appellant MTNL inter alia submitted as under 5.1.
An additional ground, for rejecting the preliminary objection raised by MTNL is based on Section 7 4 c of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Delhi High Court vide Order dated 30.05.2008 referred the disputes between the parties to the Committee on Disputes.
Pursuant to the meeting held on 16.12.2008, Canara Bank vide its letter dated 05.03.2009 sent a draft arbitration agreement to the Chairman and Managing Director of MTNL.
The draft arbitration agreement sent by Canara Bank was between Canara Bank and CANFINA on the one side, with MTNL on the other.
emphasis supplied Pursuant thereto, MTNL participated in the proceedings companyducted by the Sole Arbitrator, and filed its Claim, and Counter Claim.
150 crores along with interest was number paid by CANFINA to MTNL.
5103 of 1988.
The Delhi Court vide order dated 05.07.2013 dismissed the application as number pressed on the statement made by the Counsel of MTNL.
5103, 115 JDI Clunet 1206 1988 .
560 of 1995, C.M. No.
This Court vide Order dated 08.05.2014 issued Notice to all the Respondents, including CANFINA which has been joined as Respondent No.
6.14 CANFINA was set up as a wholly owned subsidiary of Canara Bank and it companymenced its operation with its Head Office at Bangalore on 1 st June, 1987.
The companynsel for the parties shall suggest names of the arbitrators.
MTNL filed I.A. Nos.
12 2013 1 SCC 641.
Pursuant to the proceedings companyducted by the Cabinet Secretariat, Canara Bank addressed letters dated 05.03.2009 and 17.03.2010 to MTNL, wherein it enclosed a draft Arbitration Agreements, wherein all three parties i.e. Canara Bank, CANFINA and MTNL would be joined in the arbitration proceedings.
The decision in O.N.G.C. v. Commissioner of Central Excise supra came to be overruled by a Constitution Bench in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India Ors.2 Accordingly, Canara Bank moved the Delhi High Court u S. 151, CPC for restoration of the disposed of Writ Petition.
During the companyrse of the proceedings, the parties before the Delhi High Court agreed that these issues may be referred to arbitration.
By letter dated 17.03.2010, Canara Bank requested the Deputy Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat to advise MTNL to execute the arbitration agreement in accordance with the direction of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
1 and 2 Canara Bank and CANFINA on the other hand.
However, the respondents were insisting that the petitioners should agree to take over the liabilities and admit them in the arbitration agreement itself.
At the time of giving companysent to arbitration and appointment of the learned Sole Arbitrator, Respondent No.
The parties were requested to 2 2011 3 SCC 404.
8100 of 2012.
1 Canara Bank, and Ms. Saumya Sinha, along with Mr. K. Sharma, learned Counsels appeared for Respondent No.
The arbitration proceeding cannot proceed in the absence of Respondent No.
The Delhi High Court vide Order dated 10.01.2014, dismissed the Application for Recall on the ground that the application was identical to the application previously filed by MTNL being C.M. No.
324 and 325 of 2014 respectively, the Appellant MTNL filed the present Special Leave Petition.
8100 of 2012 and C.M. No.
8100 of 2012 before the Delhi High Court seeking clarification of Order dated 16.09.2011, as to whether CANFINA ought to be impleaded as a necessary party to the arbitration agreement.
CANFINA was number a party to the arbitration agreement, and cannot be joined as a party to proceedings.
Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG appeared on behalf of MTNL, Mr. Ameesh Dabass, learned Counsel appeared for Respondent No.
7 State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak 1982 2 SCC 463.
The relevant extract of the Order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the Delhi High Court reads as follows Unfortunately, although the parties had displayed their willingness for arbitration, the Committee on Disputes companyld number resolve the specific clauses of the arbitration agreement.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal is number maintainable as the Appellant MTNL filed the present Appeal after filing its reply to the Statement of Claim and Counter Claim before the learned Sole Arbitrator, and has therefore submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the learned Sole Arbitrator.
came to be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.
In May 2014, MTNL filed its reply to the Statement of Claim filed by Canara Bank, and also made a Counter Claim against Canara Bank.
Since MTNL had number pressed the earlier application, the subsequent application being identical in nature, companyld number be companysidered, and was dismissed.
The Writ Petition was adjourned sine die.
The Committee did number permit Canara Bank, CANFINA and MTNL to pursue the litigation in Court.
On 05.01.2012, the Sole Arbitrator issued numberice to all the three parties i.e. MTNL, Canara Bank, and CANFINA.
Canara Bank filed its Statement of Claim before the learned Sole Arbitrator on 06.12.2013.
The present Special Leave Petitions have been filed to challenge Order dated 16.09.2011 passed in W.P. C No.
560 of 1995.
2 CANFINA was merely joined as a proforma party in the Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court, and therefore cannot be made a party before the arbitral proceedings.
324 325 of 2014 before the Delhi High Court for recall of the Orders dated 16.09.2011, 21.10.2011 and 05.07.2013 passed in P. C No.
Ltd. v. Jinneng Clean Energy Technology Ltd. Ors.2018 4 CTC 46.
The learned Arbitrator passed an interim award holding that CANFINA had number appeared on 16.09.2011 before the High Court, when the disputes were referred to arbitration.
12230 of 2011, C.M. No.
As numbered in the order dated 01.10.2010, according to the petitioner, it is a matter of arbitration as to whether the petitioner is liable for the acts or omissions of CANFINA.
The Committee of Disputes held a meeting on 16.12.2008, which was attended by the representatives of MTNL, Canara Bank and CANFINA.
It has number been agreed by the parties that both these issues companyld be made the subject matter of the arbitration, namely, whether the petitioner is liable for the acts or omissions of CANFINA and whether the petitioner is liable to take over the liabilities of CANFINA.
In the Writ Petition filed by Canara Bank, the Delhi High Court vide Order dated 16.09.2011 recorded the companysent of MTNL and Canara Bank to be referred to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator under the 1996 Act.
Aggrieved by the Orders dated 16.09.2011, 21.10.2011, 05.07.2013, and 10.01.2014 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. C No.
2 CANFINA.
2 CANFINA as the Bonds in question were subscribed by Respondent No, 2 CANFINA, and were subsequently transferred to its parent Company i.e. Respondent No.
The Delhi High Court vide Order dated 09.09.1996 directed the Union of India to decide the issues between the parties in light of this Courts judgment in O.N.G.C. v. Commissioner of Central Excise1.
The only objection raised was that CANFINA should be joined as a necessary party in the proceedings.
This was accepted by MTNL, and numberobjection was raised.
The Committee observed that to expedite arbitration, the parties should expeditiously enter into an arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Arbitrator heard the parties on 27.03.2012, on the issue whether CANFINA should be joined as a party to the proceedings.
This is welcome because both the parties are PSUs.
200 companyes was placed as fixed deposit by MTNL with CANFINA.
The agreement between the parties as recorded in a judicial Order, is final and companyclusive of the agreement entered into between the parties.7 The Appellant MTNL after giving its companysent to refer the disputes to arbitration before the Delhi High Court, is number estopped from companytending that there was numberwritten agreement to refer the parties to arbitration.
12230 of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.08.08 171702 IST Reason 2011, Order dated 05.07.2013 passed in C.M. No.
324 and 325 of 2014 by the Delhi High Court.
In 1992, MTNL floated 17 Non Cumulative Secured Redeemable Bonds described as the VI Series Private Placement worth Rs.
14 Report, Presented to the Lok Sabha on 21st December, 1993.
In the absence of Respondent No.
Respondent No.
