21 October 2021, Thursday

3 years ago

The arbitrator would decide if the dispute arose from the MOU or the subsequent settlement agreement: Delhi High Court

21 October 2021 | Pooja Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Prabhuprem Infotech Pvt. Ltd. |Arb. P. 573 of 2020 | Sanjeev Narula J | Delhi High Court | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4749

There was a memorandum of understanding for transfer of shares that did not contain an arbitration clause. Some disputes arose later, and the parties executed a settlement agreement. Disputes arose again and an application was made for appointment of an arbitrator. It was resisted on two grounds, first, the claim had arisen under the MOU and not the settlement agreement, and two, the claim was hit by limitation. Both were considered matters for the tribunal. On limitation, the court found that it was not the exceptional category of cases set out in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 5 SCC 738.

[Ed. It appears that the court erred in not making the distinction between the petition for appointment being barred by limitation, versus the time-barred claim itself].

BACK Next

connect with us: