-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
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.
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.
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: 20th March 2024
M/S FORTUNA SKILL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES
