M/S COMED CHEMICALS LTD. versus C.N. RAMCHAND

M/S COMED CHEMICALS LTD. versus C.N. RAMCHAND

The agreement between the parties was commercial in nature, and the respondent's role as Director (Technical) with equity shareholding and policy-making functions constituted a commercial relationship covered by Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration clause in the MoU was valid, hence the dispute must be decided by an arbitrator.

Parties
Applicant: M/S COM ED CHEMICALS LTD.; Respondent: C.N. RAMCHAND
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Petition / Decision on Appointment of Arbitrator Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Outcome
Petition allowed
Legal Topics
International Commercial Arbitration, Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration Clause Validity, Employment Versus Commercial Contract
Arbitration Law Commercial Law International Commercial Arbitration Appointment of Arbitrator Arbitration Clause Validity Employment Versus Commercial Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S COM ED CHEMICALS LTD.

Applicant

C.N. RAMCHAND

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Petition / Decision on Appointment of Arbitrator Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dispute between the applicant company and respondent is 'commercial' in nature so as to constitute 'international commercial arbitration' under Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Understanding is valid and enforceable for the present dispute
  3. 3 Whether the relationship between the parties was merely of employer-employee or constituted commercial relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement between the parties was commercial in nature, and the respondent's role as Director (Technical) with equity shareholding and policy-making functions constituted a commercial relationship covered by Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration clause in the MoU was valid, hence the dispute must be decided by an arbitrator.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed

Orders

  • Mr. Madhukar Fanse, retired Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad is appointed as sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.