Post by xyz3700 on Feb 27, 2024 8:30:57 GMT
The exceptional judicial control of arbitration decisions through annulment action, provided for in article 33 of Law 9,307/1996, cannot be used as justification to demonstrate mere non-compliance on the part of the losing party. STJ According to Minister Marco Aurélio Bellizze, the rejection of certain evidence, as long as it is adequately substantiated by the arbitration court, does not constitute an offense against the adversarial STJ This was the understanding of the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice when upholding a decision that denied the request for annulment of an arbitration award that condemned a company for R$2.7 million due to the undue withholding of the payment of social shares assigned to it. The collegiate followed the vote of the rapporteur, minister Marco Aurélio Bellizze.
In the special appeal, the company pointed out a violation of the right to produce expert evidence in the arbitration procedure and the principle of objective good faith. The collegiate, however, considered that the arbitration court acted under free motivated conviction and respected public order, guaranteeing adversarial proceedings and broad defense. The appeal originated in an action to annul an arbitration award in which the company Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List claimed that it had signed contracts with the defendant for the onerous transfer of shares in a company's capital. Of the agreed amount, around R$8 million, the company suspended payment of R$2.7 million due to debts incurred by the defendant in the name of the company. According to the company that filed the lawsuit, the defendant proposed the initiation of arbitration proceedings to receive the amounts without mentioning the outstanding debts.
The arbitration court ordered the company to pay R$2.7 million to the transferor of the shares. At the judicial level, the first-degree judge annulled the arbitration award because he understood that there was an undue refusal to produce accounting expert evidence, preventing the company from exercising its right to defense. In the second instance, the São Paulo Court of Justice reversed the sentence and dismissed the annulment action, on the grounds that the arbitration decision gave reasons for not granting the expert opinion. In the appeal addressed to the STJ, the company alleged that there was disrespect for the principles of adversarial proceedings and due legal process, provided for by the Arbitration Law. He also argued that there had been a violation of the principle of objective good faith, which should guide contractual relations.
In the special appeal, the company pointed out a violation of the right to produce expert evidence in the arbitration procedure and the principle of objective good faith. The collegiate, however, considered that the arbitration court acted under free motivated conviction and respected public order, guaranteeing adversarial proceedings and broad defense. The appeal originated in an action to annul an arbitration award in which the company Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List claimed that it had signed contracts with the defendant for the onerous transfer of shares in a company's capital. Of the agreed amount, around R$8 million, the company suspended payment of R$2.7 million due to debts incurred by the defendant in the name of the company. According to the company that filed the lawsuit, the defendant proposed the initiation of arbitration proceedings to receive the amounts without mentioning the outstanding debts.
The arbitration court ordered the company to pay R$2.7 million to the transferor of the shares. At the judicial level, the first-degree judge annulled the arbitration award because he understood that there was an undue refusal to produce accounting expert evidence, preventing the company from exercising its right to defense. In the second instance, the São Paulo Court of Justice reversed the sentence and dismissed the annulment action, on the grounds that the arbitration decision gave reasons for not granting the expert opinion. In the appeal addressed to the STJ, the company alleged that there was disrespect for the principles of adversarial proceedings and due legal process, provided for by the Arbitration Law. He also argued that there had been a violation of the principle of objective good faith, which should guide contractual relations.