Contents
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Fraud Allegations Not Arbitrable: The Delhi High Court ruled that cases involving serious fraud allegations, especially those concerning public authorities or foreign entities, are best decided by civil courts rather than arbitral tribunals.
- Appeal by Bentwood Seating System Dismissed: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by Bentwood Seating System against the Airports Authority of India (AAI), upholding the arbitrator’s decision that the dispute was non-arbitrable due to the complexity and gravity of the fraud allegations.
Background of the Case
- Tender Issued by AAI in 2017: AAI issued a tender in November 2017 for the supply and maintenance of 4,000 baggage trolleys across multiple airports.
- Bentwood Seating’s Bid & Alleged Fraud:
- The company claimed to be the Indian associate of Suzhou Jinta Metal Working (SJM), China.
- Submitted Satisfactory Performance Certificates (SPCs) allegedly issued by Heathrow Airport (UK) and Noi Bai International Airport (Vietnam) to meet tender eligibility.
- Fraud Complaint & Investigation:
- In October 2017, Gilco Exports India filed a complaint alleging forgery of documents.
- Investigation revealed that both airports denied issuing the SPCs, and SJM denied any association with Bentwood Seating.
- AAI’s Actions Against Bentwood Seating:
- AAI terminated the contract and blacklisted Bentwood Seating in February 2018.
- Bentwood Seating initiated arbitration proceedings, leading to an initial arbitral award in its favor.
- The High Court later set aside the arbitral award, citing the arbitrator’s failure to address fraud allegations adequately.
Delhi High Court’s Observations & Ruling
Fraud Involving Foreign Entities Requires Court Adjudication:
- The Court upheld the sole arbitrator’s finding that the dispute was too complex for arbitration due to the international dimension of the fraud.
- Justice Subramonium Prasad’s key ruling:
“The conclusion of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator that a Court is better equipped to adjudicate these issues, therefore, does not call for any interference. It cannot be said that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has taken a cursory view regarding fraud. The issues that arise are complicated and complex in nature involving the production of witnesses outside the country and also documents from outside the country.”
Limitations of Arbitration in Fraud Cases:
- The Court noted that an arbitral tribunal lacks authority to summon international witnesses or seek help from the Ministry of External Affairs, making a civil court the better forum.
- Quoted:
“Though the Arbitral Tribunal has been conferred with powers under Section 27 of the Act of 1996 to call for witnesses, this Court believes that the view taken by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator that it would be more easy for the civil court to summon witnesses, that is, officials at the Heathrow Airport, United Kingdom and Noi-Bai International Airport, Vietnam and officials of the SJM to give evidence for unearthing the core issue which is as to whether the SPCs which has been produced by the Appellant is fabricated or not…Appellant cannot be permitted to get a premium on fraud which is alleged to have been committed by them and Courts cannot be mute spectators to such fraud which is alleged to have been committed.”
Fraud Vitiates the Entire Contract & Arbitration Clause:
- The Court emphasized that fraud of this nature invalidates the entire contract, including the arbitration agreement itself.
Legal Representation in the Case
- For Bentwood Seating System:
- Advocates SD Singh, Kamla Prasad, Meenu Singh, and Siddharth Singh
- For Airports Authority of India (AAI):
- Advocates Digvijay Rai, Chetna Rai, Archit Mishra, and Raghib Ali Khan
Click here to download or read the original judgement/order
