Trace Your Case


Swiss Timing Ltd. v. Organizing Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi, (Arbitration Petition No. 34 of 2013)


  • Whether a dispute involving allegations of fraudulent, corrupt, collusive or coercive practice be settled by arbitration?


  • Allegations of fraud and other malpractices are arbitrable, but the arbitral tribunal cannot deal with a case of serious fraud and its jurisdiction is merely limited to determining the issue of simpliciter fraud.


  • The Petitioner, a Swiss company, and the Respondent entered into an agreement in 2010 to provide the time, score, outcome, and support services necessary to hold the Commonwealth Games in India.
  • The Petitioner initiated arbitration pursuant to clause 38 of the Contract after alleging that the Respondent had failed to make the payments required by the Contract.
  • The Respondent failed to nominate its arbitrator on the grounds that Swiss Timing Ltd. had broken a warranty that it would not engage in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive, or coercive practices, which it claimed was evidenced by the criminal cases pending against the officials of Swiss Timing Ltd.
  • The Petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Section 113 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act, for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.


  • The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the allegations of fraud can be determined by arbitration, where an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
  • It was also observed by the Hon’ble Court that initiation of a criminal case cannot be a reason for denying arbitration.
  • The Court further held that the contention of substantive Contract being void/voidable is not a bar to arbitration, and the court must follow the policy of least interference.
  • Hence, the court held that the possibility of conflicting decisions is not a bar against simultaneously proceeding with arbitration and criminal proceedings.