Case: M/S ICOMM TELE LTD Vs. PUNJAB STATE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD

2. In 2008, the Punjab State Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bhatinda issued notice inviting tender for extension and augmentation of water supply, sewerage scheme, pumping station and sewerage treatment plant for various towns mentioned therein on a turnkey basis. On 25.9.2008, the appellant company, which is involved in civil/electrical works in India, was awarded the said tender after having been found to be the best suited for the task. On 16.1.2009, a formal contract was entered into between the appellant and respondent No. 2. It may be mentioned that the notice inviting tender formed part and parcel of the formal agreement. Contained in the notice inviting tender is a detailed arbitration clause. In this matter, we are concerned with clause 25(viii) which is set out asIt shall be an essential term of this contract that in order to avoid frivolous claims the party invoking arbitration shall specify the dispute based on facts and calculations stating the amount claimed under each claim and shall furnish afor ten percent of the amount claimed, on a schedule bank in the name of the Arbitrator by his official designation who shall keep the amount in deposit till the announcement of the award. In the event of an award in favour of the claimant, the deposit shall be refunded to him in proportion to the amount awarded w.r.t the amount claimed and the balance, if any, shall be forfeited and paid to the other party.The appellant had entered into similar contracts with respondent No. 2 which contained the same arbitration clause. It had therefore addressed letters to respondent No. 2 with regard to appointment of arbitrator in those matters and sought for waiving the 10% deposit fee. After having received no response, the appellant had filed a writ petition, being Civil Writ Petition No. 18917 of 2016, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. This writ petition was dismissed by a judgment dated 14.9.2016 stating that such tender condition can in no way be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.4. On 8.3.2017, the appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of this part of the arbitration clause by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 4882 of 2017. The High Court in the impugned judgment merely followed its earlier judgment and dismissed this writ petition as well.

Reasoning: 7. Having heard learned counsel for both parties, it will be seen that the 10%before a party can successfully invoke the arbitration clause is on the basis that this is in order to avoid frivolous claims.From this clause, it also becomes clear that arbitration is considered to be an alternative dispute resolution process and entry to the civil court is sought to be taken away if the disputes between the parties are covered by the arbitration clause.9. It is well settled that the terms of an invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, as they are in the realm of contract, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory, or actuated by malice.As has correctly been argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, thisjudgment in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. (supra), which lays down that contracts of adhesion, i.e., contracts in which there is unequal bargaining power, between private persons and the State are liable to be set aside on the ground that they are unconscionable, does not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction (see paragraph 89 of the said judgment). In this view of the matter, the argument of the appellant based on this judgment must fail.In upholding such a clause, this Court referred to the judgment in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. (supra) and distinguished this judgment, stating that the concept of unequal bargaining power has no application in the case of commercial contracts. It then went on toIt has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there should be a cap in the quantum payable in terms of sub-clause (7) of Clause 25-A. This plea is clearly without substance. It is to be noted that it is structured on the basis of the quantum involved. Higher the claim, the higher is the amount of fee chargeable. There is a logic in it. It is the balancing factor to prevent frivolous and inflated claims. If the appellants plea is accepted that there should be a cap in the figure, a claimant who is making higher claim stands on a better pedestal than one who makes a claim of a lesser amount.It will be noticed that in this judgment there was no plea that the aforesaid condition contained in an arbitration clause was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as such clause is arbitrary. The only pleas taken were that the ratio of Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. (supra) would apply and that there should be a cap in the quantum payable by way of security deposit, both of which pleas were turned down by this court. Also, the security deposit made would, on the termination of the arbitration proceedings, first be adjusted against costs if any awarded by the arbitrator against the claimant party, and the balance remaining after such adjustment then be refunded to the party making the deposit. This clause is materially different from clause 25(viii), which, as we have seen, makes it clear that in all cases the deposit is to be 10% of the amount claimed and that refund can only be in proportion to the amount awarded with respect to the amount claimed, the balance being forfeited and paid to the other party, even though that other party may have lost the case. This being so, this judgment is wholly distinguishable and does not apply at all to the facts of the present case.We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid clause cannot be said to be discriminatory in that it applies equally to both respondent No. 2 and the appellant. However, arbitrariness is a separate and distinct facet of Article 14.The first important thing to notice is that the 10%of the amount claimed is in order to avoid frivolous claims by the party invoking arbitration. It is well settled that a frivolous claim can be dismissed with exemplary costs.It is therefore always open to the party who has succeeded before the arbitrator to invoke this principle and it is open to the arbitrator to dismiss a claim as frivolous on imposition of exemplary costs.The important principle established by this case is that unless it is first found that the litigation that has been embarked upon is frivolous, exemplary costs or punitive damages do not follow. Clearly, therefore, aof 10% of the amount claimed, which can amount to large sums of money, is obviously without any direct nexus to the filing of frivolous claims, as it applies to all claims (frivolous or otherwise) made at the very threshold. A 10% deposit has to be made before any determination that a claim made by the party invoking arbitration is frivolous. This is also one important aspect of the matter to be kept in mind in deciding that such a clause would be arbitrary in the sense of being something which would be unfair and unjust and which no reasonable man would agree to. Indeed, a claim may be dismissed but need not be frivolous, as is obvious from the fact that where three arbitrators are appointed, there have been known to be majority and minority awards, making it clear that there may be two possible or even plausible views which would indicate that the claim is dismissed or allowed on merits and not because it is frivolous. Further, even where a claim is found to be justified and correct, the amount that is deposited need not be refunded to the successful claimant. Take for example a claim based on a termination of a contract being illegal and consequent damages thereto. If the claim succeeds and the termination is set aside as being illegal and a damages claim of one crore is finally granted by the learned arbitrator at only ten lakhs, only one tenth of the deposit made will be liable to be returned to the successful party. The party who has lost in the arbitration proceedings will be entitled to forfeit nine tenths of the deposit made despite the fact that the aforesaid party has an award against it. This would render the entire clause wholly arbitrary, being not only excessive or disproportionate but leading to the wholly unjust result of a party who has lost an arbitration being entitled to forfeit such part of the deposit as falls proportionately short of the amount awarded as compared to what is claimed.24. Further, it is also settled law that arbitration is an important alternative dispute resolution process which is to be encouraged because of high pendency of cases in courts and cost of litigation. Any requirement as to deposit would certainly amount to a clog on this process. Also, it is easy to visualize that often a deposit of 10% of a huge claim would be even greater than court fees that may be charged for filing a suit in a civil court.Several judgments of this Court have also reiterated that the primary object of arbitration is to reach a final disposal of disputes in a speedy, effective, inexpensive and expeditious manner.Deterring a party to an arbitration from invoking this alternative dispute resolution process by a pre-deposit of 10% would discourage arbitration, contrary to the object of de-clogging the Court system, and would render the arbitral process ineffective and expensive.