Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Christian Michelle, who has been the alleged middleman in the scrapped contract of VVIP Chopper deal entered between the Agusta Westland and the then UPA government. The deal mainly involves the purchase of 12 VVIP choppers to the Indian Air Force. In light of the possible existence of corruption, bribery, the union government approached the judicial institution for quashing the relevant arbitration proceedings which continue to occur before three eminent personalities—Prof. William W Park, Justice (retd) B N Srikrishna and Justice (retd) BP Jeevan Reddy.
Recently, the Union Government extradited the alleged middleman, Christian Michelle, from Dubai to India. Justice Pratibha Singh on hearing the submissions of the Union Government sent a notice to the company ‘Agusta Westland’ to file a reply on the government’s plea within three weeks. Nonetheless, the court expressed its refusal related to granting an injunction on the arbitral proceedings as there was a want of arbitral record or orders of the tribunal.
The Court said in an interim order that it had not seen any submissions made or contentions or objections raised before the arbitral tribunal, and the defendant firm has not responded to the allegations of corruption and bribery.
The Additional Solicitor General contended that injunction is imperative as criminal proceedings are going on against the defendant company. The Learned-counsel submitted that the investigation on Christian Michell is in progress, and the allegations of corruption and bribery make the dispute in the instant case as non-arbitrable. The ASG invoked section 29 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which states that the arbitral proceedings should be completed within 12 months from the date on which the arbitral tribunal begins adjudication. In accordance with the same section, the ASG stay order on the arbitral proceedings as the mandate stands terminated in terms of Section 29A of the Act.
The court heard certain opposing contentions from the other counsel named Arun Kathpalia. He added that section 29A does not affect the present case as the section came into being after the dispute arose. The amendment cannot have retrospective effect. Therefore, in light of the arguments raised by both the parties, the court said that if the contract involving arbitration agreement is invalidated by the allegations of bribery and corruption, the nature of objections and claims raised by both the plaintiff and the defendant need to be considered.
Insofar as the nullification of the arbitration agreement is concerned, the court would decide after receiving the reply from the defendant. Further, the court said the decision on the validity of the arbitration agreement could not be rejected at this stage. Nonetheless, the parties might have to submit pleadings in the application seeking an interim injunction and place arbitral records before the court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824