IBC | 'Role Of Navigation' In Policy Making Suffices To Bar Related Party From CoC, 'Driving Seat' Control Under Sec 29A Not Required: Supreme Court Section 31 CrPC | Multiple Life Sentences In Single Trial Cannot Run Consecutively, Must Be Superimposed: Supreme Court Section 43D(7) UAPA | Subsequent Visa Overstay Doesn't Convert Lawful Entry Into 'Illegal Entry'; Bar Inapplicable To Default Bail Under Sec 167(2) CrPC: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Rebutted When Accused Proves Prior Intimation Of Lost Cheque And Discredits Complainant's Financial Capacity: Karnataka High Court Will | Both Attestation And Testator's Signature Need Not Be Established By Same Witness; Beneficiary Competent To Identify Handwriting: Madras High Court Writ Maintainable For Contractual Dues If Liability Is Admitted; Paucity Of Funds No Ground To Withhold Payment: Allahabad High Court Accused Has No Criminal Antecedents: Karnataka High Court Rejects State's 'Habitual Stalker' Claim, Grants Bail Under Section 483 BNSS Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Used To Circumvent Limitation By Challenging Consent Decree To Revive Time-Barred Underlying Claims: Delhi High Court Section 346 BNSS | Remand Warrant Mandatory After Taking Cognizance; Continued Detention Illegal If Magistrate Adjourns Without Specific Remand Order: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Enhances Land Acquisition Compensation To ₹20 Per Square Yard For Maharajpur Land, Citing High Potentiality Near New Delhi Apartment Ownership Bye-Laws | Default In Paying Common Expenses Doesn't Bar Members From Requisitioning SGM For Removal Of Managers: Calcutta High Court Railways Act | Failure Of Railways To Prepare Jamatalashi Report Under 2003 Rules Precludes Plea Of Passenger Negligence: Bombay High Court Issuance Of Show Cause Notice Under Section 74 CGST Act Does Not Warrant Writ Interference Merely Due To Alleged Inadequacy In Audit Reply Consideration: Delhi High Court Model Employer Must Act Compassionately: Kerala High Court Quashes Union Bank's Mechanical Rejection Of Transfer Exemption Requests Made By Women Officers Dishonour Of Cheque | Accused Can Rebut Statutory Presumptions Under Sec 139 NI Act By Establishing Probable Defence Through Preponderance Of Probabilities: Madras High Court TP Act | Suit For Injunction & Declaration Against Alienation Not Maintainable Under Agreement To Sell Without Claiming Specific Performance: Madhya Pradesh High Court Economic Offence Cases Involving Large-Scale Fraud Do Not Merit 'Exceptional Remedy' Of Pre-Arrest Bail: Orissa High Court Old Pension Scheme | Subsequent Recruitment Merely Exempting Applicants From Fee Is De Novo, Cannot Relate Back To Pre-Cut-Off Advertisement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Preventive Detention Under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act | Failure To Seek Bail Cancellation Does Not Per Se Vitiate Detention Order: Kerala High Court Determination Of Victim's Age Under Section 94 JJ Act Must Follow Statutory Hierarchy Of Documents: Madras High Court Plaintiff In Injunction Suit Must Prove Own Lawful Possession, Cannot Succeed On Deficiencies In Defendant's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unconditional Acceptance Of Settlement Extinguishes Consumer Status, Second Complaint Barred By Res Judicata: Punjab SCDRC Maternity Benefit Act | Contractual Condition Barring Additional Leave Cannot Override Statutory Maternity Benefits: Rajasthan High Court Section 49 Registration Act | Collateral Purpose Cannot Be Used To Establish The Very Transaction Requiring Registration: Punjab & Haryana High Court IT Act | Unpaid Excise Duty On Stock In Bonded Warehouse Can't Be Disallowed If Not Debited To P&L Account: Supreme Court Supreme Court Cannot Act As Supervisory Body Over Arbitral Execution Under Guise Of Clarification War Injury Pension Admissible For Disabilities In Specially Notified Operations Like 'Operation Rakshak' Absent Express Policy Exclusion: Supreme Court Income Tax Act | Reassessment Valid If Fresh Tangible Material Shows Escapement; Plea Of 'Change Of Opinion' Untenable Without Prior Conscious Adjudication: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Power To Extend Arbitral Mandate Vests In S.2(1)(e) 'Court', Not High Court Under S.11; S.14 IBC No Bar On Claims By Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court Section 292BB IT Act Inapplicable Where Notice Not Issued At All; Notice Under Section 143(2) Mandatory Jurisdictional Prerequisite For Reassessment Under Section 147: Supreme Court PC Act | 'Known Sources Of Income' Means Sources Disclosed To Prosecution; IO Need Not Conduct Roving Enquiry Into Undisclosed Assets: Supreme Court Non-Furnishing Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Not Blanket Ground For Bail Absent Demonstrable Prejudice: Supreme Court Cross-Suits Under Trade Marks Act: Supreme Court Exercises Section 25 CPC Discretion To Consolidate & Transfer Parallel Infringement Suits To Neutral Forum

For Claims of Damages, Proof of Actual Loss is Sine Qua Non” – Bombay High Court Stays Arbitral Award

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


The Bombay High Court has granted an unconditional stay on an arbitral award in a dispute concerning breach of contract and damages, emphasizing the necessity of proving actual loss in claims for damages.

Facts & Issues: The case involves Alkem Laboratories Limited and Issar Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited, centered on a dispute over a Marketing and Distribution Agreement (MDA) for a product named MELGAIN. The key issue was the arbitrator’s award of damages to Issar Pharmaceuticals for Alkem’s alleged breach of contract regarding minimum purchase volumes, despite no proof of actual loss being provided.

Court’s Assessment:

Contradiction in Arbitral Award: The court observed that while the arbitrator acknowledged the need for proving actual loss in damages, the award was paradoxically based on the product price, not the actual loss, failing to consider necessary deductions like manufacturing costs.

Burden of Proof Not Met: Alkem’s counsel argued that the claimant failed to show any proof of loss, a crucial element in damage claims. The court noted this was in direct contradiction to settled legal principles.

Unique Nature of Contract Overlooked: The court criticized the arbitrator’s approach, noting a flawed application of legal principles to the unique contract (MDA), leading to an incorrect computation of damages.

Reference to Precedents: The judgment referred to various precedents underlining the necessity of proving actual loss in damage claims, emphasizing that this forms the essence of a valid claim for damages under contract law.

Decision: The High Court, acknowledging these substantial legal missteps, granted an unconditional stay on the arbitral award, finding it to be patently illegal and perverse. The hearing of the arbitration petition was expedited.

 

Date of Decision: 5 February 2024

Alkem Laboratories Limited Vs Issar Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited

Latest Legal News