No One Can Take Away Broker’s Lawful Earnings in the Name of Equity: Bombay High Court Quashes Award Refunding Brokerage Despite Authorised Trades Customs Act | Once the Department Accepted the Appellate Order, It Could Not Reopen the Drawback Eligibility: Orissa High Court Invokes Functus Officio Doctrine Against Revenue Life Estate Cannot Be Transformed Into Absolute Ownership Merely Because the Remainderman Went Missing Madras High Court Clarifies Law on Vested Remainder and Civil Death Co-Sharer Can’t Be Locked Out Just Because He Lives Abroad: Delhi High Court Upholds NRI’s Right to Access Joint Family Property Tribunal’s View on Composite Fly Ash Embankment Is Plausible, Binding and Beyond Judicial Interference: Delhi High Court Dismisses NHAI's Section 34 Challenge Indemnity Ends Where Change in Law Begins: Supreme Court Draws a Constitutional Line in Coal Block Cancellation Row ‘Blatant Gender Discrimination’: Supreme Court Mandates Equal Access To Open Prisons; Constitutes High-Powered Committee For National Prison Reform Prison Reform Is A Constitutional Obligation, Not Executive Grace: Supreme Court Mandates National Expansion Of Open Prisons; Appoints Justice Ravindra Bhat To Frame Uniform Standards One Debt, Two Doors Open: Supreme Court Upholds Simultaneous CIRP Against Principal Borrower and Corporate Guarantor High Court Cannot Revisit What the Supreme Court Has Finally Settled: SC Shields Promotions Granted Under Its Earlier Orders Section 133 Contract Act | Surety Cannot Be Fastened With What He Never Guaranteed: Supreme Court Limits Liability to Sanctioned Amount Highest Bid Need Not Win: Commercial Wisdom of CoC Is Supreme Under IBC: Supreme Court Refuses to Reopen Approved Resolution Plan Supreme Court Classifies ‘Sharbat Rooh Afza’ as Fruit Drink, Not Miscellaneous Commodity Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be a Shortcut for Recovery of Contractual Dues: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Failed Joint Venture Dispute Recovery of Weapon Is Not Sine Qua Non for Conviction When Eye-Witnesses Inspire Confidence: Supreme Court If the Legislature Intended to Exclude Trespassers, It Would Have Explicitly Stated So: Supreme Court Upholds Regularisation of SC/ST Occupants Under U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act Failure to Explain Blood Stains Is a Strong Incriminating Circumstance: Gujarat High Court Draws Adverse Inference Under Section 313 CrPC Vesting of Project Land in State Cannot Defeat RERA Recovery: Himachal Pradesh High Court Directs Collector to Complete Execution Proceedings Rights Accrued Under a Registered Lease Cannot Be Defeated by Unilateral Cancellation: Supreme Court A Party in Settled Possession Does Not Sue for Possession: Supreme Court Settles Century-Old Amogasidda Temple Pujari Dispute BNSS Permits Preliminary Enquiry Even When Cognizable Offence Is Alleged: Tripura High Court Refuses Mandamus for FIR in MLA’s Fake Document Broadcast Row

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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