Case: World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd Vs. Msm Satellite(Singapore) Pte. Ltd

Convention to which Section 45 of the Act applies. In the case of such arbitrations covered by the New York Convention, the Court can decline to make a reference of a dispute covered by the arbitration agreement only if it comes to the conclusion that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, and not on the ground that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation have to be inquired into while deciding the disputes between the parties. 30. We may now consider the correctness of the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment. The Division Bench of the High Court has held that the Facilitation Deed was part of several agreements entered into amongst different parties commencing from 25.03.2009 and, therefore, cannot be considered as stand apart agreement between the appellant and the respondent and so considered the Facilitation Deed as contrary to public policy of India because it is linked with the finances, funds and rights of the BCCI, which is a public body. This approach of the Division Bench of the High Court is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, which mandates that in the case of arbitration agreements covered by the New York Convention, the Court which is seized of the matter will refer the parties to arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. In view of the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, the Division Bench of the High Court was required to only consider in this case whether Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed which contained the arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. 31. The Division Bench of the High Court has further held that Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed insofar as it restricted the right of the parties to move the courts for appropriate relief and also barred the right to trial by a jury was void for being opposed to public policy as provided in Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and was also void for being an agreement in restraint of the legal proceedings in view of Section 28 of the said Act. Parliament has made the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 providing domestic arbitration and international arbitration as a mode of resolution of disputes between the parties and Exception 1 to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 clearly states that Section 28 shall not render illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any dispute which may arise between them in respect of any subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration and that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred. Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed is consistent with this policy of the legislature as reflected in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and is saved by Exception 1 to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The right to jury trial is not available under Indian laws. The finding of the Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, that Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed is opposed to public policy and is void under Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is clearly erroneous.32. The Division Bench of the High Court has also held that as allegations of fraud and serious malpractices on the part of the appellant are in issue, it is only the court which can decide these issues through furtherance of judicial evidence by either party and these issues cannot be properly gone into by the arbitrator. As we have already held, Section 45 of the Act does not provide that the court will not refer the parties to arbitration if the allegations of fraud have to be inquired into. Section 45 provides that only if the court finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, it will decline to refer the parties to arbitration.33. The Division Bench of the High court has further held that since the earlier suit (Suit No.1869 of 2010) was pending in court since 25.06.2010 and that suit was inter-connected and inter-related with the second suit (Suit No.1828 of 2010), the court could not allow splitting of the matters and disputes to be decided by the court in India in the first suit and by arbitration abroad in regard to the second suit and invite conflicting verdicts on the issues which are inter-related. This reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment is alien to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act which does not empower the court to decline a reference to arbitration on the ground that another suit on the same issue is pending in the Indian court.34. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the dispute between the appellant and the respondent as to whether the Facilitation Deed was voidable or not on account of fraud and misrepresentation. Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed states inter alia that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with, touching upon or relating to the Facilitation Deed, the breach thereof and/or the scope of the provisions of the Section shall be submitted to the ICC for final and binding arbitration under its Rules of Arbitration. This arbitration agreement in Clause 9 is wide enough to bring this dispute within the scope of arbitration. To quote Redfern And Hunter On International Arbitration (Fifth Edition page 134 para 2.141) “Where allegations of fraud in the procurement or performance of a contract are alleged, there appears to be no reason for the arbitral tribunal to decline jurisdiction.” Hence, it has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court that it is for the arbitrator to decide this dispute in accordance with the arbitration agreement.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]20. We are unable to accept the first contention of Mr. Venugopal that as Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed provides that any party may seek equitable relief in a court of competent jurisdiction in Singapore, or such other court that may have jurisdiction over the parties, the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and restrain the arbitration proceedings at Singapore because of the principle of Comity offind that in para 64 of the plaint in Suit No.1828 of 2010 filed before the Bombay High Court by the respondent, it is stated that the Facilitation Deed in which the arbitration clause is incorporated came to be executed by the defendant at Mumbai and the fraudulent inducement on the part of the defendant resulting in the plaintiff entering into the Facilitation Deed took place in Mumbai and the rescission of the Facilitation Deed on the ground that it was induced by fraud of defendant has also been issued from Mumbai. Thus, the cause of action for filing the suit arose within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 20 of theapproach of the Division Bench of the High Court is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, which mandates that in the case of arbitration agreements covered by the New York Convention, the Court which is seized of the matter will refer the parties to arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. In view of the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, the Division Bench of the High Court was required to only consider in this case whether Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed which contained the arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative or incapable of beingfinding of the Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, that Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed is opposed to public policy and is void under Sections 23 and 28 ofthe Indian Contract Act, 1872 is clearly erroneous.32. The Division Bench of the High Court has also held that as allegations of fraud and serious malpractices on the part of the appellant are in issue, it is only the court which can decide these issues through furtherance of judicial evidence by either party and these issues cannot be properly gone into by the arbitrator. As we have already held, Section 45 of the Act does not provide that the court will not refer the parties to arbitration if the allegations of fraud have to be inquired into. Section 45 provides that only if the court finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, it will decline to refer the parties to arbitration.33. The Division Bench of the High court has further held that since the earlier suit (Suit No.1869 of 2010) was pending in court since 25.06.2010 and that suit was inter-connected and inter-related with the second suit (Suit No.1828 of 2010), the court could not allow splitting of the matters and disputes to be decided by the court in India in the first suit and by arbitration abroad in regard to the second suit and invite conflicting verdicts on the issues which are inter-related. This reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment is alien to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act which does not empower the court to decline a reference to arbitration on the ground that another suit on the same issue is pending in the Indian court.34. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the dispute between the appellant and the respondent as to whether the Facilitation Deed was voidable or not on account of fraud and misrepresentation. Clause 9 of the Facilitation Deed states inter alia that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with, touching upon or relating to the Facilitation Deed, the breach thereof and/or the scope of the provisions of the Section shall be submitted to the ICC for final and binding arbitration under its Rules of Arbitration. This arbitration agreement in Clause 9 is wide enough to bring this dispute within the scope of arbitration.