NDLI: Mankastu Impex Private Limited Vs. Airvisual Limited

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	ss.9 & 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 International Commercial Arbitration
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Arbitration Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Dismissed
Headnote	Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.9, 11 – International Commercial Arbitration seated outside India – Petitioner-company (incorporated in India) is in the business of supply of air purifiers, air quality monitors etc. – Respondent- company (incorporated in Hong Kong) is in the business of manufacture, sale of air quality monitors, air quality information – Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into between the parties – Respondent agreed to sell to the petitioner the complete line of it’s air quality monitors products for onward sale and appointed it as an exclusive distributor for the products for sale within India – Petitioner received a letter from CEO of one IQAir AG inter alia stating that IQAir AG has acquired all technology, associated assets of the respondent and that it will not assume any of respondent’s contracts or legal obligations – Petitioner eventually issued notice invoking arbitration clause in Clause 17 of the MoU – Filed petition u/s.9 seeking directions against respondent and IQAir AG to honour the terms and conditions of the MoU – Pending – Present petition filed u/s.11(6) seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator u/Clause 17 – Held: Words in Clause 17.1 do not suggest that the seat of arbitration is in New Delhi – Clause 17.2 of the MoU stipulates that the dispute arising out of or relating to it shall be referred to and finally resolved by the arbitration administered in Hong Kong – Words in Clause 17.2 that “arbitration administered in Hong Kong” is an indicia that the seat of arbitration is at Hong Kong – Once the parties have chosen “Hong Kong” as the place of arbitration to be administered in Hong Kong, laws of Hong Kong would govern the arbitration – If the arbitration agreement is found to have seat of arbitration outside India, then the Indian Courts cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the award or pass Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.9, 11 – International Commercial Arbitration seated outside India – Petitioner-company (incorporated in India) is in the business of supply of air purifiers, air quality monitors etc. – Respondent- company (incorporated in Hong Kong) is in the business of manufacture, sale of air quality monitors, air quality information – Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into between the parties – Respondent agreed to sell to the petitioner the complete line of it’s air quality monitors products for onward sale and appointed it as an exclusive distributor for the products for sale within India – Petitioner received a letter from CEO of one IQAir AG inter alia stating that IQAir AG has acquired all technology, associated assets of the respondent and that it will not assume any of respondent’s contracts or legal obligations – Petitioner eventually issued notice invoking arbitration clause in Clause 17 of the MoU – Filed petition u/s.9 seeking directions against respondent and IQAir AG to honour the terms and conditions of the MoU – Pending – Present petition filed u/s.11(6) seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator u/Clause 17 – Held: Words in Clause 17.1 do not suggest that the seat of arbitration is in New Delhi – Clause 17.2 of the MoU stipulates that the dispute arising out of or relating to it shall be referred to and finally resolved by the arbitration administered in Hong Kong – Words in Clause 17.2 that “arbitration administered in Hong Kong” is an indicia that the seat of arbitration is at Hong Kong – Once the parties have chosen “Hong Kong” as the place of arbitration to be administered in Hong Kong, laws of Hong Kong would govern the arbitration – If the arbitration agreement is found to have seat of arbitration outside India, then the Indian Courts cannot exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the award or pass interim orders, thus in the present case in order to enable the parties to avail interim relief, Clause 17.3 that parties have agreed that they may seek interim relief for which Delhi Courts would have jurisdiction, appears to have been added – Since the arbitration is seated at Hong Kong, the petition filed by the petitioner u/s.11(6) is not maintainable and is dismissed – Open to the petitioner to approach Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre for appointment of arbitrator, if they so desire – Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.2(1)(f) – International Commercial Arbitration – Factors to be fulfilled for – Held: Three factors ought to be fulfilled-(i) arbitration; (ii) considered as commercial under the laws in force in India; and (iii) at least one of the parties is national or habitual resident in any country other than India. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Proviso to s.2(2) & ss.9, 27, 37 – Held: By 2015 Amendment Act, a proviso has been added to s.2(2) as per which, certain provisions of Part-I of the Act i.e. ss.9, 27, 37(1)(a) and 37(3) have been made applicable to “International Commercial Arbitrations” even if the place of arbitration is outside India – Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – International Commercial Arbitration seated outside India – Proviso to s.2(2), s.11 – Applicability of s.11 – Held: s.11 is not included in proviso to s.2(2) and thus, it has no application to International Commercial Arbitrations seated outside India – Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 284
Petitioner	Mankastu Impex Private Limited
Respondent	Airvisual Limited
SCR	[2020] 4 S.C.R. 565
Judgement Date	2020-03-05
Case Number	32

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

Mankastu Impex Private Limited Vs. Airvisual Limited

Please Log-in to view this content

Visa International Ltd. Vs. Continental Resources (usa) Ltd.

Reckitt Benckiser (india) Private Limited Vs. Reynders Label Printing India Private Limited and Anr.

Alva Aluminium Ltd. Bangkok Vs. Gabriel India Limited

Tdm Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Ue Development India Private Limited

Sirajudeen Kasim & Anr. Vs. M/s Paramount Investments Ltd.

Dlf Home Developers Limited Vs. Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr.

Powertech World Wide Limited Vs. Delvin International General Trading Llc

Ibi Consultancy India Private Limited Vs. Dsc Limited

Shinhan Bank Vs. Carol Info Services Limited

Mankastu Impex Private Limited Vs. Airvisual Limited

Mankastu Impex Private Limited Vs. Airvisual Limited

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Visa International Ltd. Vs. Continental Resources (usa) Ltd.

Reckitt Benckiser (india) Private Limited Vs. Reynders Label Printing India Private Limited and Anr.

Alva Aluminium Ltd. Bangkok Vs. Gabriel India Limited

Tdm Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Ue Development India Private Limited

Sirajudeen Kasim & Anr. Vs. M/s Paramount Investments Ltd.

Dlf Home Developers Limited Vs. Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr.

Powertech World Wide Limited Vs. Delvin International General Trading Llc

Ibi Consultancy India Private Limited Vs. Dsc Limited

Shinhan Bank Vs. Carol Info Services Limited

Mankastu Impex Private Limited Vs. Airvisual Limited