Case Law Details
Glitter Overseas & Ors. MMTC Limited (Delhi High Court)
Held that an arbitral award can be set aside/ challenged u/s 34 of A&C Act only if an arbitral tribunal’s view is not a possible view and no reasonable person could possibly accept the same.
Facts- Glitter Overseas (Petitioner) and MMTC (respondent) entered into a ‘Hypothecation Agreement for Pre and Post Shipment Credit Advance’. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of certain transactions between the years 1993-1996. MMTC claimed that Glitter was liable to pay an amount of ₹1,13,39,008.71/-, on account of shortfall in receipt of payment of twelve (12) invoices. In respect of five invoices, MMTC claimed that the importer/foreign buyer had accepted the delivery of goods, however, it had failed to make any payment. In respect of seven invoices, MMTC claimed that the foreign buyer neither took the delivery of the goods in question nor paid for the same. However, MMTC sold four of the said seven consignments to alternate foreign buyers.
MMTC further claimed that it had released six kgs of gold on loan basis for manufacture and export of jewellery within the specified period of 120 days, in favour of Glitter. However, the gold in question was seized by the Indian Customs Authorities as Glitter failed to manufacture and export the jewellery within the specified period. The Customs Authorities seized 4 kgs of gold on 30.04.1996 and the remaining 2 kgs of gold was surrendered by Glitter to them.
MMTC also claimed an amount of ₹17,07,198/- on account of deferment of interest in respect of certain consignments. MMTC averred that two cheques (₹8,50,000/- and ₹8,57,198/-) dated 19.02.1996 were issued by Glitter, however, the said cheques were dishonored and thus, Glitter was liable to pay an amount of ₹17,07,198/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
