The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), serves as the procedural backbone of civil litigation in India, governing the framework for filing suits, conducting trials, and enforcing decrees. Its foundational principles, however, have come under scrutiny in the context of arbitration, a system designed to operate outside the traditional court structure. A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of MMTC Limited vs. Anglo-American Metallurgical Pty Limited and Ors1. has clarified the limited role of the CPC in matters already concluded by arbitration. The court held that a civil suit filed under the provisions of the CPC cannot be used to declare an arbitral award a nullity. This decision serves as a critical reminder of the specific, self-contained mechanism for challenging arbitration outcomes provided by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and reinforces that the expansive procedural avenues of the CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the finality of an arbitral award, even in cases where serious allegations of fraud are later discovered.
Journey from Arbitration to Civil Court
The matter originated from a LTA2 for the supply of coking coal between the plaintiff, MMTC Limited, a public sector enterprise, and the defendant, Anglo-American Metallurgical Pty Limited. The LTA contained an arbitration clause, which led the parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce rules. The Arbitral Tribunal issued an award in 2014, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff later filed a civil suit, alleging that the Addendum No. 2 to the agreement, which was the basis of the award, was vitiated by fraud and corruption orchestrated by its own former officials in collusion with the defendant.
The filing of a civil suit in this context raises a fundamental question about the interplay between the 1996 Act and the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). While the 1996 Act provides a specific, self-contained mechanism for challenging an award under Section 34, the plaintiff’s suit sought to use the provisions of the CPC to bypass this process. The plaintiff’s move to a civil court was based on the premise that the alleged fraud was discovered only after the arbitral proceedings and subsequent appeals had concluded, leaving them without a remedy under the 1996 Act.
The Court’s Deliberation: Navigating the Legal Framework
The Delhi High Court’s analysis centered on the defendant’s application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. This rule allows a court to dismiss a suit at the very beginning if it appears to be barred by any law. The core issue before the court was: Can a “suit” be maintained to declare an Arbitral Award a nullity?
The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the 1996 Act does not provide a remedy for a situation where fraud is discovered post-arbitration, and therefore, a civil suit is maintainable. They contended that a party cannot be rendered “remediless,” relying on precedents such as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh and Others3: In this case, the Supreme Court had observed that a party should not be left without a remedy if it later discovers facts amounting to a high degree of fraud.
A decree obtained by fraud can be set aside by filing a separate suit. Reliance is placed on Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd4. The LTA, in the present case, is unlawful and immoral in terms of section 23 of Contract Act, 1872 and the Arbitral Tribunal having not been apprised about the Agreement being unlawful or in ignorance of the said statutory provision, has passed an Arbitral Award.
National Projects Construction Corporation vs. Royal Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd5.: The plaintiff also cited this case to argue that a suit is maintainable to set aside an award tainted by fraud.
However, the defendant counsel vehemently opposed this position. The defence argued that the plaintiff’s suit was an abuse of the legal process and was a direct attempt to re-litigate issues that had already been settled by the Arbitral Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court. The defendant’s key arguments, which were central to the court’s reasoning, were:
The 1996 Act is a complete code: The defendant argued that the 1996 Act is a comprehensive legal framework for arbitration and, in light of the non-obstante clause in Section 5, it excludes the jurisdiction of a civil court.
Section 34 is the sole remedy: It was contended that Section 34 of the 1996 Act provides the only method for challenging an arbitral award, and allowing a civil suit would undermine the sanctity of the entire arbitration process.
An arbitral award is not a decree of the court: The defendant drew a crucial distinction, explaining that while an arbitral award is enforceable “as if it were a decree” under Section 36 of the 1996 Act, this is a legal fiction that does not transform the award into a court-issued decree. Therefore, the established precedents for challenging a decree on grounds of fraud do not apply to an arbitral award.
Dismissal of the plaint under the CPC: The defence successfully argued that the suit was barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and should be dismissed at the threshold to prevent the waste of judicial time on a “meaningless” and “abortive” litigation. They relied on precedents like Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali6.
Conclusion
The judgment’s rationale is a powerful affirmation of the principle that a party cannot use a civil suit as a backdoor to challenge an arbitral award that has already attained finality. The court observed that allowing such a suit would render the entire purpose of the 1996 Act “infructuous” and “otiose”.
The ruling is particularly significant because it addresses the growing trend of parties seeking to circumvent the limited scope of challenges provided under the 1996 Act by raising allegations of fraud in a new forum. The court’s decision clarifies that the remedy for challenging an arbitral award lies exclusively within the framework of the arbitration law itself. As Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court stated in the judgment: “Arbitration, chosen by consent, cannot be overridden by post-facto civil suits on allegedly rediscovered facts otherwise arbitration will turn into a never-ending cycle of challenges.” By dismissing the civil suit at the threshold, the Delhi High Court has upheld the spirit of arbitration, ensuring that the judicial process is not abused and that finality in dispute resolution is maintained.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Archana Shukla
