WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD. versus MSM SATELLITE (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 24-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 1 S.C.R. 796 
A 
WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD. 
8 
c 
v. 
MSM SATELLITE (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 895 of 2014) 
JANUARY 24, 2014 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 
ss.44 and 45 - Foreign seated arbitration - Jurisdiction 
of High Court to pass an order of injunction restraining a 
foreign seated international arbitration at Singapore between 
the parties - Plea of respondent that the main agreement 
D which contains the arbitration agreement is void because of 
fraud and misrepresentation by the appellant and therefore 
court cannot refer the parties to arbitration - Held: s.45 of the 
Act postulates that even where request of arbitration is made 
by a party, it will not refer the parties to arbitration, if it finds 
that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable 
E of being performed - The words "inoperative or incapable of 
being performed" in s.45 have been taken from Article II (3) 
of the New York Convention - Jn the case of such arbitrations 
covered by the New York Convention, the Court can decline 
to make a reference of a dispute covered by the arbitration 
F agreement only if it comes to conclusion that the arbitration 
agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being 
performed, and not on the ground that allegations of fraud or 
misrepresentation have to be inquired into while deciding the 
disputes between the parties - In the instant case, the 
G allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation in the main 
agreement did not impact the validity of the arbitration 
agreement which was separable from the rest of the contract 
- Therefore, applying principle of separability parties were 
wrongly refused to refer arbitration on the ground that 
H 
796 
WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD. v. MSM 
797 
SATELLITE (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. 
arbitration agreement was also void along with main A 
agreement - Principle of separability. 
Arbitration restricting the right of the parties to move the 
courts for appropriate relief and also barring the right to trial 
by a jury - Whether void for being opposed to public policy 
8 
as provided in s.23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and void 
for being an agreement in restraint of the legal proceedings 
in view of s.28 of the said Act - Held: Parliament has made 
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 providing domestic 
arbitration and international arbitration as a mode of resolution 
C 
of disputes between the parties and Exception 1 to s. 28 of the 
Contract Act, 1872 clearly states that s.28 shall not render 
illegal a contract, by which two or more persons agree that any 
dispute which may arise between them in respect of any 
subject or class of subjects shall be referred to arbitration and 
that only the amount awarded in such arbitration shall be D 
recoverable in respect of the dispute so referred - The right 
to jury trial is not available Under Indian laws - In the instant 
case, the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court that 
arbitration clause of the Facilitation Deed is opposed to public 
policy and is void u/ss.23 and 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 is 
E 
clearly erroneous - Contract Act, 1872 - ss.23, 28. 
Doctrines/Principles: Principle of Comity of Courts -
Applicability of - Plea of appellant that. on principle of comity 
of courts, the Bombay High Court should have refused to 
F 
interfere in the matter and should have allowed the parties to 
resolve their dispute through ICC arbitration subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts in accordance with the 
arbitration clause of the Facilitation Deed - Held: Not 
applicable in the instant case, no decision of a court of foreign 
G 
country or no law of a foreign country was cited on behalf of 
the appellant to contend that the courts in India out of 
deference to such decision of the foreign court or foreign Jaw 
mu'st not assume jurisdiction to restrain arbitration 
proceedings at Singapore - On the other hand, uls. 9 of the 
H 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A CPC, the courts in India have jurisdiction to try all suits of a 
civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either 
expressly or impliedly barred - Thus, the appropriate civil 
court in India has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass 
appropriate orders in the suit by virtue of s.9 of the CPC -
B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 9. 
The BCCI invited tenders for IPL Media Rights on a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.