Serious fraud cases: SC rejects appeals against Patna HC order appointing arbitrators
A Division Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra reiterated a set of guiding principles to determine when disputes involving fraud can and cannot be resolved through arbitration.
The appeals stemmed from a challenge to the Patna High Court's orders allowing arbitration proceedings in multiple cases despite allegations of serious fraud.Access to justice for the enforcement of rights is generally through ordinary civil courts.
However, Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 saves contractual resolution mechanisms such as arbitration.
Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act restricts arbitrability in cases where other statutes explicitly prohibit arbitration.
The Court clarified that the existence or possibility of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts does not automatically render a civil dispute non-arbitrable. Civil matters such as coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation under the Indian Contract Act can still be resolved through arbitration.Citing the precedent in Swiss Timing Ltd., the Court observed that permitting arbitration to proceed alongside criminal proceedings does not inherently prejudice either party.Distinction Between 'Serious Fraud' and 'Fraud Simpliciter'
The Court reaffirmed that serious fraud, due to its public law implications, may exclude a dispute from arbitration, unlike 'fraud simpliciter,' which remains arbitrable.
The Court laid out two tests, first when the arbitration agreement itself is in doubt, i.e., one party denies entering into it altogether. Second, when allegations are made against the State or its instrumentalities, requiring scrutiny beyond contractual issues, touching upon public law principles.
Serious fraud allegations with potential criminal implications and broader public impact, such as corruption affecting governance or national security, are non-arbitrable. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider fraud-related disputes within the contract, even if the contract is terminated or challenged, the apex judiciary stated.
However, fraud allegations directly targeting the arbitration clause itself are non-arbitrable.
When fraud is alleged specifically against the arbitration agreement, the Tribunal lacks authority to adjudicate the issue.
The party raising a plea of non-arbitrability bears the burden to prove it, the court said. UNI SNG SSP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Citing lack of ‘cogent and live proximate link' to suicide, Telangana High Court quashes criminal case against builder
The Telangana High Court recently quashed a criminal petition filed against a city builder who was accused of abetment to suicide of his construction partner and cheating, based on the lack of a 'live proximate link' between the accused's actions and the death. The court also relied on the prosecution's failure to prove fraudulent intent from the inception of the business transaction. The judgment, delivered by Justice Juvvadi Sridevi on August 1, emphasised the necessity of a 'live proximate link' between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide. The court observed that the suicide note, discovered a week and a half after the death, contained no evidence of 'direct or live proximate act of instigation, intentional aid, or active involvement' by the accused. The case stemmed from a business dispute between the petitioner, Nandyala Narendar Reddy, and his construction partner B Lakshmana Rao, who allegedly died by suicide in 2022. The prosecution's case was built on a 'suicide note' found eleven days after Rao's death, which accused Reddy of financial deception and refusing to register Rao's share of flats. The judgment pointed to certain circumstantial inconsistencies, such as the family's initial belief that Rao's death was due to a cardiac arrest and the subsequent cremation without an autopsy, which cast doubt on the case's very foundation. 'Significantly, the so-called suicide note does not contain any direct or live proximate act of instigation, intentional aid, or active involvement on the part of the petitioner-accused that could be construed as abetment within the meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), so as to attract the offence under Section 306 (of the) IPC,' the judgment said. Drawing upon a Supreme Court precedent, the court reiterated that 'mere allegations of harassment, discord, or strained relations, in the absence of a specific, proximate, and overt act of incitement or instigation, are legally insufficient to bring home the charge of abetment'. In the absence of any such 'cogent and live proximate evidence', the court found that the foundational ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 (of the) IPC are clearly lacking. Regarding the cheating charge under Section 420 of the IPC, the court differentiated between a criminal offence and a mere contractual dispute and found that the prosecution failed to establish fraudulent intent at the inception of the business transaction. The ruling reaffirmed the legal distinction that 'mere breach of contract or failure to fulfill a promise, in the absence of such initial fraudulent intent, does not constitute an offence' under Section 420 of the IPC. Highlighting it as a major procedural failure in the police investigation, the court noted the investigating agency's inexplicable omission to interview a crucial witness, Gandem Ranga Rao, the site supervisor who was privy to the business dealings. This failure was deemed a 'serious lapse' and 'fatal to the case of the prosecution.' The court concluded that compelling the petitioner to endure a trial would be a 'sheer abuse of the process of law,' in the absence of any cogent and legally admissible material establishing ingredients of the alleged offences' under sections 306 and 420 of the IPC and consequently dismissed the criminal proceedings.
NDTV
6 minutes ago
- NDTV
Video: Lawyer Slaps Dog Lover Outside Supreme Court
New Delhi: Dog lovers and lawyers got involved in a physical fight right outside the Supreme Court over its order to relocate stray dogs from residential localities to shelter homes. In a video, a lawyer can be seen pulling a civilian and thrashing the man. The lawyer, visibly fuming with anger, hits the man twice before people intervene and try to mediate. The video of the fight, which has now gone viral, is said to be from August 11, the day the Supreme Court pronounced the order. In the video, people can be heard screaming and abusing the lawyers. View this post on Instagram A post shared by NDTV (@ndtv) On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered civic authorities in the Delhi NCR region, covering Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurugram, to immediately build dog shelters, move stray dogs and update the court. These shelters, the court said, must have professionals who can tackle dogs, carry out sterilisation and immunisation and also have CCTVs to ensure dogs don't escape. "We are not doing this for us, it is for the public interest. So, no sentiments of any nature should be involved. Action should be taken at the earliest," Justice Pardiwala said. "Pick up dogs from all localities and shift them to shelters. For the time being, forget the rules," he told amicus curiae Gaurav Agarwala, who suggested the steps that can be taken to address the stray dog menace. The Supreme Court's decision comes amid a rise in cases of dog bites in Delhi, leading to rabies deaths. However, the order didn't sit well with dog lovers. Animal rights activist and former Union minister Maneka Gandhi strongly criticised the order, calling the directive "impractical", "financially unviable" and "potentially harmful" to the region's ecological balance. "You have three lakh dogs in Delhi. To get them all off the roads, you'll have to make 3,000 pounds, each with drainage, water, a shed, a kitchen, and a watchman," she told the news agency PTI. "That will cost about Rs 15,000 crore. Does Delhi have Rs 15,000 crore for this?" she asked. Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Wednesday assured a relook at the ban on stray dogs amid an uproar from several quarters of society.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
Madras HC refuses to entertain PIL seeking action against former judges for alleged interference in judicial process
Representative image CHENNAI: Madras high court on Wednesday refused to entertain a PIL seeking action against seven former judges of the HC, led by Justice B Chandru, for allegedly interfering with the judicial process by addressing a letter to Justice G R Swaminathan, urging him to refrain from initiating contempt action against advocate S Vanchinathan. Madurai-based lawyer Vanchinathan lodged a complaint with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), making allegations of 'caste-based bias' against Justice Swaminathan. Refusing to concur with the submissions of advocate G S Mani, representing the petitioner 'journalist' Varaaki, that the letter issued by the seven retired judges amounts to interference with the administration of justice, the first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan asked, "Do you feel that such judges are influenced by such issues?" You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai | Gold Rates Today in Chennai | Silver Rates Today in Chennai "This plea is nothing but publicity-seeking litigation. The issue will be dealt with on the administrative side of the court. We do not want people like you to poke your nose into such matters," the bench said. The issue pertains to a complaint lodged by Madurai-based advocate S Vanchinathan, alleging 'caste-based bias' against Justice Swaminathan to the CJI. On the presumption that the bench headed by Justice Swaminathan was likely to initiate contempt of court action against Vanchinathan, seven former judges of the court, led by Justice B Chandru, addressed a communication to Justice Swaminathan to refrain from initiating any such action, as it is for the CJI to take a call on the complaint. Alleging that the appeal made by the seven retired judges to Justice Swaminathan amounts to interference in judicial proceedings, Varaaki moved the present plea in the form of a PIL seeking action against the former judges. He wanted the court to forbid the retired judges from issuing public letters, appeals, or statements intended to influence pending judicial proceedings, particularly in matters involving allegations against sitting judges of the HC. Advocate Mani contended that the communication made by the retired judges damaged the dignity and integrity of the judiciary, particularly Justice Swaminathan. The former judges might have stopped after issuing the communication to Justice Swaminathan, but the same was widely circulated on social media. Even the contents of the complaint against the judge were shared by Vanchinathan on social media, he alleged. If such practices are entertained, how will the sitting judges of the court pass orders in sensitive matters, the petitioner said. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
