Delhi High Court Affirms: “No Perversity or Unreasonableness in Tribunal’s Assessment” in Fortuna-Jaina Mobile Services Dispute

March 21, 2024

property interest free Property Worker Bail Document Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

In the recent judgment of M/S Fortuna Skill Management Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S. Jaina Marketing and Associates, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan, upheld the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal, focusing on the Tribunal’s evaluation of evidence and interpretation of contractual obligations in a dispute over financial settlements in mobile phone after-sale services. The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference in arbitration, citing the Tribunal’s approach as devoid of any “perversity or unreasonableness,” thereby dismissing the challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Factual Background:

The case revolved around a disagreement over the cost of spare parts supplied by Jaina Marketing to Fortuna Skill Management for repairs of mobile phones, both within and outside the warranty period. Issues arose when the parties could not reconcile their accounts for the spare parts supplied.

Court Assessment:

The High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan, examined several key points:

Enforcement of Arbitral Award: The Court upheld the arbitral award, focusing on the Tribunal’s findings regarding the validity of declaration letters and account reconciliations based on ledger documents.

Examination of Evidence: Justice Jalan emphasized the Tribunal’s right to reject additional evidence at a late stage, highlighting the principle of efficiency in arbitration proceedings.

Contractual Interpretation: The judgment respected the Tribunal’s interpretation of contractual clauses, particularly in relation to account reconciliation and the use of CRM data.

Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, asserting that there was no substantial merit in challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judgment upheld the Tribunal’s findings, stating that the award did not exhibit any perversity or unreasonableness.

Date of Decision: 20^th March 2024

M/S FORTUNA SKILL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES

Download Judgment