

Case Summary: K.K Modi vs. K.N Modi

Case Summary: K.K Modi vs. K.N Modi 0

BY PARISHKRITI ATRI ON JUN 25, 2020 CASE SUMMARY, LEX BULLETIN

 This post has been written by Parishkriti Atri, a first year law student
pursuing LL.B. (H) from Amity Law School, Noida.

Date: 4 February, 1998

Number of Judges: Two

Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, D.P. Wadhwa

Act: The arbitration act, 1940

Citation: AIR 1998 SC 1297

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Modi family divided into GROUP A (KN Modi, Younger brother of Mai Modi and his sons) and
GROUP B (Mai Modi’s sons,including KK Modi), owned a number of public limited companies.

Disputes arose between the two groups and to resolve these conflicts, many financial institutions
were called, including the one who invested in the companies.

A memorandum of agreement was signed specifying that the consultation of all matters will be done
by the Chairman of IFCI (Industrial Finance Corporation of India) Or his nominees, whose decision
will be final and binding.

Both the groups were dissatisfied with the report that was submitted to them which mentioned
details of splitting of all the assets for which the groups sought the help of chairman and managing
director of IFCI. The latter formed a committee and discussed all the problems arising Out of the
report.

The Chairman of IFCI gave out its final report, claiming it as its final decision in the matter. He also
gave out some directions to both the groups in the same report. While this report was not filed in the
court, a series of directions were given for the implementation of the same by the nominated
chairman.

On 18th May, 1996 Group B filed an arbitration petition in the Delhi High Court Under section 33 of
the arbitration act, 1940. They challenged the legality and validity of the directions issued by the
chairman and managing director of IFCI. They also filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court with
similar arguments, except for one paragraph Where they stated That they sought relief because the
directions of the chairman and managing director of IFCI were a decision and not an arbitration
award.

Also Read: Certificate Course on Offences against Human Body Under

IPC by Lawschole; Register By August 15.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether clause 9 in the memorandum of agreement Constituted an arbitration clause?

 2. Whether the decision of IFCI constituted an arbitration award?
3. Whether the Civil suit was an abuse of the court process?

JUDGEMENT

The court declared that the clause did not constitute an arbitration clause because there is no
mention of the disputes being referred to the “arbitration” of an “arbitrator”.

The court mentioned a set of guidelines which would help ascertain whether the parties involved
agreed for arbitration or not. Following those guidelines, it was concluded that this decision did not
constitute an arbitral award.

It was also declared that the civil suit was an abuse of process since the same issue was being
addressed through two different proceedings. However, the council of the Appellants mentioned
that since the memorandum of understanding did not have an arbitration clause, and the decision
did not constitute an arbitration award,they were allowed to file a suit challenging the decision of
IFCI. The court partly accepted these arguments and declared the civil suit as not being abusive of
the court process, Except for the reliefs which were sought similar to the arbitration petition.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1777887/
2. https://www.slideshare.net/nishidh41/kk-modi-vs-kn-modi-ors-1998-3-scc-573

Image Source: Here

Read more about Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA)

     
Help save this 1 year old from his deadly eye tumor!
Ad Donate For Health IN

LEAVE A REPLY
 You must be logged in to post a comment.

SUBMIT YOUR POST FOR FREE

SUPPORT US

Name of Donor

Amount (in USD) USD

The safer, easier way to pay

WRITE A CASE SUMMARY

 CATEGORIES

Select Category

RECENT POSTS

Avoiding Bankruptcy: Financial Planning Tips

MoU inked to Enhance IPR Awareness and Filing for MSMEs in Maharashtra

Dekalb County Probate Court: A Guide to Navigating Estate Affairs

Prof. (Dr.) Dilip Ukey, Vice Chancellor, MNLU Mumbai elected as Convener CLAT 2025

Case Summary: Morningstar v. Lafayette Hotel Co. (1914)

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stories handpicked for you.
 Enter Your Email ID Here..

SUBSCRIBE
We respect your privacy and won't spam you

All Rights Reserved!

Front Page | About Us | Advertising | Calendar | Contribute | Lawlex Campus Ambassadors

| Lawlex YT Channel | Log In | Newsletter | Our Team | Privacy Policy | Register | Support Us
| Terms & Conditions | Work With Us | Your Profile