<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<root>
    <author>ENA</author>
    <category>Sectors</category>
    <date>2024-08-02 15:40:16</date>
    <fulldesc>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Delhi, Aug 2 (KNN)&lt;/strong&gt; In a significant ruling, the High Court has affirmed a Single Judge's decision to set aside an arbitral award in the case of Plus91 Security Solutions vs. NEC Corporation India Private Limited.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The High Court found this award to be vitiated by patent illegality, as it contradicted the clear terms of the agreement.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the original bargain between parties, including liability exclusions agreed upon in the contract.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;This judgment underscores the courts' approach to upholding contractual terms in arbitration cases and the limits of arbitral tribunals' discretion in interpreting agreements.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The Arbitral Tribunal had initially awarded Plus91 Rs 8.43 crore as damages for lost profits, despite a clause in the MOU excluding liability for such losses.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The High Court ruled that arbitrators lack jurisdiction to award interest if expressly forbidden by the contract.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;While the MOU exempted certain damages like loss of profits, it did not preclude compensation for direct costs incurred.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The dispute centered on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two companies regarding potential collaboration on biometric boarding systems.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The MOU was interpreted as a preliminary agreement to explore collaborations, not a binding commitment to specific contractual obligations.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The case (FAO (OS)(COMM) 36/2024) was argued by Senior Advocates Jayant Mehta and Ramesh Singh, representing the respective parties.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;This ruling may have significant implications for future arbitration cases involving the interpretation of preliminary agreements and liability exclusion clauses.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(KNN Bureau)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
</fulldesc>
    <id>38840</id>
    <link>https://knnindia.co.in/news/newsdetails/sectors/delhi-high-court-sets-aside-arbitral-award-pertaining-to-damages-for-lost-profits</link>
    <pubDate>2024-08-02 15:40:16</pubDate>
    <source>knnindia.co.in</source>
    <title>Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Pertaining To Damages for Lost Profits</title>
</root>
