Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd and Ors

Case Number: Civil Appeal No5107 of 2022 

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Judges B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala 

Order Date: 05.07.2023

Facts of the Case:

  1. D.M.C. Management Consultants Limited 2 was incorporated as a public limited company under the Companies Act, 1956 in July 1995. A Representation Agreement was executed on 18.09.2000 to be effective from 03.10.2000 between DMC and Integrated Sales Service Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). The said agreement was signed by Rattan Pathak (Managing Director) on behalf of DMC and Terry L. Peteete, Director on behalf of Respondent No. 1. 
  2.  Under the said agreement, Respondent No. 1 was to find customers for DMC on commission basis. Under the terms of the agreement, Respondent No. 1 as the representative was to assist DMC in selling its goods and services to prospective customers and to receive commission in consideration thereof. Further, as per Clause 8(d), any dispute between the two companies was agreed to be subjected to the laws of the State of Missouri, USA and the same were to be referred to a sole Arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties. Upon failure to agree to Arbitrator, the appointment was to be made according to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association.



  • As many as 18 grounds have been raised in the review petitions, we have considered not only the oral submissions advanced by Mr. Salve, learned Sr. Counsel, but have also perused all the grounds raised in the review petition. A close perusal of the judgment dated 10.08.2021 reflects that all the grounds taken in the review have been discussed in detail and findings returned not accepting the claim of the Review Petitioner. What is sought to be argued is basically that the view taken is erroneous and therefore, impugned judgment deserves to be reviewed. 
  • A reading of Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would show that there are six ingredients to an award being a foreign award under the said Section. First, it must be an arbitral award on differences between persons arising out of legal relationships. Second, these differences may be in contract or outside of contract, for example, in tort. Third, the legal relationship so spoken of ought to be considered “commercial” under the law in India. Fourth, the award must be made on or after the 11th day of October, 1960. Fifth, the award must be a New York Convention award – in short it must be in pursuance of an agreement in writing to which the New York Convention applies and be in one of such territories. And sixth, it must be made in one of such territories which the Central Government by notification declares to be territories to which the New York Convention applies. 
  • Each and every argument having been considered by this Court in its judgment dated 10.08.2021, the arguments advanced if accepted would result in expressing different opinion on the points raised and decided, which we are afraid do not fall within the settled contours of Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure relating to error apparent on the face of record. The other grounds of invoking the review power are neither existing nor have been raised in the present petitions. 
  • Accordingly, we do not find any good ground to allow the review petitions. They are, accordingly, dismissed.

Phone: +919841011111