NDLI: Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1996: Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss. 44, 47, 48 – Foreign awards – Recognition and enforcement of, against non-signatories to the arbitration agreement – On facts, Hong Kong based company-respondent no. 1-ISS and Indian company-DMC entered into a Representation Agreement – In terms thereof, ISS had to assist DMC to sell its goods and services to the prospective customers and in consideration was to receive Commission – By amendment, the agreement was subject to laws of the State of Delaware, USA – Dispute between the parties – Initiation of arbitration by ISS, claiming that DMC allegedly terminated its contract with the customers introduced by ISS and executed new contracts with the appellant company-GBT, a company owned and controlled by the Chairman of DMC, thereby depriving ISS of its Commission – ISS claimed damages on the basis of accounting for lost Commissions – Chairman of DMC, DMC, DMCG, GBC and appellant company filed claim as respondents – Issuance of award by the arbitrator directing the DMC, DMCG, Chairman of DMC, GBC and the appellant company to jointly and severally pay the amount awarded to ISS – As regards, the enforcement of award, the Single Judge of the High Court held that the award would be enforceable against DMC as it was a party to the agreement, and not against non-signatories to the arbitration agreement – However, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge – Appeal by non-signatories – Held: Foreign award could be enforced against non-signatories to the arbitration agreement – s. 47(1)(c) being procedural in nature does not go to the extent of requiring substantive evidence to “prove” that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be bound by a foreign award – s. 47(1)(c) speaks of only evidence as may be necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award – A non-party to the agreement, alleging that itcannot be bound by an award made under such agreement, is outside the literal construction of s. 48(1)(a) – Non-signatory’s objection cannot possibly fit into s. 48(1)(a) – Application of the alter ego doctrine under Delaware law would depend primarily upon the Arbitrator applying the oral and documentary evidence led before him to arrive at this conclusion on facts – Furthermore, perversity not a ground to set aside an award in an international commercial arbitration held in India –Expression ‘submission to arbitration’ u/ s. 48(1)(c) only deals with disputes outside the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties-and not to whether a person who is not a party to the agreement can be bound by the same – As regards, the plea that the Award should be set aside since no proper reasons given by the Arbitrator, being breach of natural justice, s. 48(1)(b) does not speak of absence of reasons in an arbitral award at all – Plea that since damages were given in tort, they would be outside the scope of the arbitration agreement cannot be accepted since u/s. 44, the tort claims may be decided by an arbitrator provided they are disputes that arise in connection with the agreement – Furthermore, s.46 does not speak of “parties” at all, but of “persons” who may, thus, be non-signatories to the arbitration agreement – Thus, on facts, actual loss can be said to have been occasioned to ISS, and the damages awarded cannot be said to shock the conscience of this Court – Damages – Doctrine of alter ego. s. 44 – Foreign awards – Ingredients to an award being foreign award – Stated. F s. 47 – Pre-requisites for the enforcement of a foreign award – Stated. s. 48(1)(a), (b) and (c) – Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards – Interpretation and scope of – Explained.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 392
Petitioner	Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent	Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr.
SCR	[2021] 7 S.C.R. 957
Judgement Date	2021-08-10
Case Number	8343-8344

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya and Anr.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs. M/s. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Fiza Developers & Inter-trade P. Ltd. Vs. Amci (i) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Intercontinental Hotels Group (india) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

N.b.c.c. Ltd. Vs. J.g. Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Chintels India Ltd. Vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Pandey & Co. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr.

Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya and Anr.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs. M/s. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Fiza Developers & Inter-trade P. Ltd. Vs. Amci (i) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Intercontinental Hotels Group (india) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

N.b.c.c. Ltd. Vs. J.g. Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Chintels India Ltd. Vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Pandey & Co. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr.