Supreme Court Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Validity Of Section 3G Of National Highways Act Case Title: B.D. Vivek v. Union of India, Writ Petition Civil No. 1364 of 2023 The Supreme Court Bench of Justices B.V. Nagrathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has issued notice on a writ petition challenging the Constitutional Validity of Section 3G of the National Highways...
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Validity Of Section 3G Of National Highways Act
Case Title: B.D. Vivek v. Union of India, Writ Petition Civil No. 1364 of 2023
The Supreme Court Bench of Justices B.V. Nagrathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has issued notice on a writ petition challenging the Constitutional Validity of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956.
The writ petition questions the legality of Section 3G(5) of the Act. This section mandates arbitration to resolve disputes over the compensation amount payable to landowners when their land is acquired. The arbitration is to be conducted by an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.
The petitioner argues that Section 3G(5) violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The contention is that imposing mandatory arbitration, with an arbitrator selected solely by the Central Government, unfairly biases the process against the landowners.
Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse to make a reference if the claims, on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, are ex-facie barred.
"...there is no doubt as to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings in general and that of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 in particular", said the Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
Case Details: M/S Arif Azim Co Ltd v. M/S Aptech Ltd. Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2023
In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court delved into the crucial question of whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to applications for the appointment of arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court highlighted the absence of a statutory prescription regarding the time limit for such applications and expressed concerns about the unduly long three-year period allowed for filing under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. While recognizing the legislative vacuum, the court urged Parliament to consider amending the Act to prescribe a specific limitation period for filing applications under Section 11(6). The decision emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes and addressed the potential impact of the absence of a time-bound framework.
Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse to make a reference if the claims, on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, are ex-facie barred.
"...there is no doubt as to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings in general and that of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 in particular", said the Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
The Supreme Court has referred to the larger bench the question of whether the courts have the power to modify the arbitral award under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Whether or not the Courts in exercise of power under sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are empowered to modify an arbitral award is a question which frequently arises in proceedings not only before this Court but also before the High Courts and the District Courts.”, the Supreme Court frames the question.
Case Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 246
The Supreme Court reiterated that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in another contract unless a specific reference was made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause into the main contract.
Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that unless a specific reference is made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause of another contract then the parties are bound to settle their dispute through the mode of settlement agreed to in the main contract.
Case Title: AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. v. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED.,
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC )267
In a crucial judgment, while allowing the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the Supreme Court (on March 04), held that to determine the factor of arbitral bias, Court must endeavour to follow international standards than domestic ones. It is only in exceptional circumstances that enforcement of a foreign should be refused on the ground of bias the Court said.
"Embracing international standards in arbitration would foster trust, certainty, and effectiveness in the resolution of disputes on a global scale. The above discussion would persuade us to say that in India, we must adopt an internationally recognized narrow standard of public policy, when dealing with the aspect of bias"
Case Title: Dani Wooltex Corporation & Ors. vs SheilProperties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.
The bench held that the mere existence of a reason for terminating the proceedings is not sufficient. The reason must be such that the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.
Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425
The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award as per Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (“Act”).
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that as per the mandate of Section 29A (4) of the Act, the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award vests within the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but there is no impediment for the High Court who is exercising the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to extend the time limit.
Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates
Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445
Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) called upon the Bar to urge only the legally permissible grounds in the arbitration proceedings carried under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “When members of the bar take up so many grounds in petitions under Section 34, which are not covered by Section 34, there is a tendency to urge all those grounds which are not available in law and waste the Court's time. The time of our Courts is precious, considering the huge pendency. This is happening in a large number of cases. All this makes the arbitral procedure inefficient and unfair. It is high time that the members of the Bar show restraint by incorporating only legally permissible grounds in petitions under Section 34 and the appeals under Section 37.”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.
Case Title – State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 454
The Supreme Court reiterated that if an arbitral award is challenged beyond the three-month limitation, the benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act will not be available. The Court held that the 30-day extension period mentioned in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be included in the "prescribed period" in Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1963.
Case Details: SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KRISH SPINNING
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489
The Supreme Court held that while deciding a Section 11(6) petition for an appointment of an arbitrator, the referral courts must not conduct an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the applicant are time-barred and should leave that question for determination by the arbitrator. The Court said that the referral court should limit its enquiry to examining whether the Section 11(6) application has been filed within the period of limitation of three years or not.
Dispute Regarding Full & Final Settlement Of Contract Is Arbitrable : Supreme Court
Case Details: SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KRISH SPINNING
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489
The Supreme Court held that if any dispute arises as to whether a contract has been discharged or not, such a dispute is arbitrable. “Once the contract has been discharged by performance, neither any right to seek performance, nor any obligation to perform remains under it. However, whether there has been a discharge of contract or not is a mixed question of law and fact, and if any dispute arises as to whether a contract has been discharged or not, such a dispute is arbitrable as per the mechanism prescribed under the arbitration agreement contained in the underlying contract.”, the Court said.
Case Title – Elfit Arabia & Anr v. Concept Hotel BARONS Limited & Ors
Citaiton : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 494
The Supreme Court recently observed that initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for cheque dishonour does not constitute continuing cause of action for initiating arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed an arbitration petition seeking the appointment of an arbitrator eleven years after cheques were dishonoured, on the ground that the claims were barred by limitation.
Arbitration | Impermissible For Arbitral Tribunal Or Courts To Grant Interest Upon Interest Under 1940 Act : Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.812 OF 2014
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 558
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an Arbitral Tribunal is not empowered to grant interest upon interest while passing an arbitral award as the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not specifically provide for the grant of interest on interest.
In the light of the above legal provisions and the case law on the subject, it is evident that ordinarily courts are not supposed to grant interest on interest except where it has been specifically provided under the statute or where there is specific stipulation to that effect under the terms and conditions of the contract.
here is no dispute as to the power of the courts to award interest on interest or compound interest in a given case subject to the power conferred under the statutes or under the terms and conditions of the contract but where no such power is conferred ordinarily, the courts do not award interest on interest.”, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said
Case Details: DLF LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF UNIVERSAL LTD) AND ANR. VERSUS KONCAR GENERATORS AND MOTORS LTD.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 565
In a significant judgment relating to International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court has decided the two important questions on the enforcement of an arbitral award expressed in foreign currency to Indian Currency.
The two questions that appeared for the Court's consideration were:
Firstly, what is the correct and appropriate date to determine the foreign exchange rate for converting the award amount expressed in foreign currency to Indian rupees? Secondly, what would be the date of such conversion, when the award debtor deposits some amount before the court during the pendency of proceedings challenging the award?
Duty Of Every Arbitral Tribunal & Court To Examine What The Contract Provides : Supreme Court
Case Title– Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 613
The Supreme Court recently emphasised that the courts and arbitral tribunals have the duty to examine the contract clauses in proceedings concerning arbitration.
While upholding Calcutta High Court's decision to set aside the arbitrator's decision to award the amount for loss due to idle machinery and labour despite it being prohibited under the contract, the Court said :
“In fact, High Court did what the Arbitrator should have done. Examine what the contract provides. This is not even a matter of interpretation. It is the duty of every Arbitral Tribunal and Court alike and without exception, for contract is the foundation of the legal relationship…The Arbitrator did not even refer to the contractual provisions and the District Court dismissed the objections under Section 34 with a standard phrase as extracted hereinabove.”
Courts At Referral Stage Must Not Enter Into Contested Questions Involving Complex Facts : Supreme Court
Case Title: COX & KINGS LTD. VERSUS SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 38 OF 2020
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 676
The Supreme Court on Monday (Sep.9) reiterated that once there exists a valid arbitration agreement, than it would not be justifiable for the referral courts at the referral stage to venture into contested questions involving complex facts.
Emphasizing upon the doctrine of competence-competence enshrined under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), the Court said that the referral courts while deciding the petition for an appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act shall restrict its inquiry on whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement or not, and it would be impermissible for the referral courts to led the detailed inquiry into contested questions involving complex facts.
Application To Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award Maintainable Even After Expiry Of Period Under S.29A(4) : Supreme Court
Case Title: ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED, SLP(C) No. 023320 - / 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 693
In an important ruling concerning the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court today held that an application for extending the time for passing of an arbitral award can be filed even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.
“we hold that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan said.
View That Delay Beyond 120 Days For S.37 Appeals Can't Be Condoned May Require Reconsideration: Supreme Court
Case : M/S SAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.
Case No: SLP(c) No. 21111/2024
The Supreme Court has observed that the view expressed in an earlier judgment that delay beyond the period of 120 days in preferring an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be condoned may require reconsideration. The Court observed that in view of Section 43 of the Act, the above-said view might require reconsideration. As per Section 43, the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Non-Signatory Party's Conduct And Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court
Case Title: AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS. VERSUS JYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 727
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement is not necessarily non-binding on a non-signatory party. Such party, though not a signatory, may have intended to be bound through its conduct or relationship with the signatory parties. A referral court must determine the issue from a prima facie perspective; although, ultimately, it is the arbitral tribunal which shall decide the same based on evidence.
Case Title: PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS M/S SANMAN RICE MILLS & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 754
The Supreme Court today (Sep. 27) observed that unless the arbitral award suffers from the illegality mentioned under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), no award can be interfered with or set aside by the Appellate Courts under Section 37 of the Act.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal observed that the award cannot be set aside merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement, the bench added.
Judge Hearing Sec.34 Application Must Apply Mind To Grounds Of Challenge: Supreme Court
Case Details : KALANITHI MARAN Versus AJAY SINGH AND ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 520
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 26) stressed fon the need for High Courts to ensure that orders dealing with challenges to arbitral awards precisely reflect adequate application of judicial mind on the merits of the case.
The Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the order of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court which has set aside the Single Bench order upholding the arbitral award of Rs. 270 crore against cash-strapped SpiceJet and its chairman, Ajay Singh. The impugned order was challenged by Kalinithi Maran in whose favor the award stood.
Arbitral Award Must Carry Post-Award Interest As Per S. 31(7)(b) : Supreme Court
Case Title: R.P. GARG VERSUS THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10472 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 794
The Supreme Court held that the post-award period shall carry a rate of interest decided as per Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
“For the reasons to follow, while allowing the appeal we have held that as this is a case arising out of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by operation of Section 31(7)(b), the sum directed to be paid under the Arbitral Award shall carry interest. This is a first principle. A sum directed to be paid by an Arbitral Award must carry interest. In this view of the matter, we have restored the judgment of the District Court granting 18% interest from the date of the award to its realization.”, the Court held.
Eviction Order Under Public Premises Act Doesn't Bar Arbitration For Contractual Disputes : Supreme Court
Case Title: CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR. VERSUS M/S SIDHARTHA TILES AND SANITARY PVT. LTD., C.A. No. 011723 / 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 822
The Supreme Court observed that an eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act would not come in the way while invoking the arbitration clause upon filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator to decide contractual disputes.
The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when the agreement entered between the parties specifically contains an arbitration clause saying that the dispute arising out of an agreement (especially renewal of the agreement) would be resolved by the arbitration then the order of the estate officer under the Public Premises Act ejecting the party being in unauthorized possession after the expiry of the agreement would not restrain the dispossessed party to invoke the arbitration clause to decide the dispute arising out of the agreement.
Case Title: International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd Versus Kamarajar Port Limited,
Case Number- Civil Appeal No 12097 of 2024
Recently, the Supreme Court disapproved of a High Court's decision to exempt a government entity from depositing other amounts in addition to the arbitral award amount as a condition precedent for seeking a stay on the enforcement of the award just because the government entity was not a flight risk.
The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the law qua arbitration proceedings cannot be differently applied merely because of the status of the respondent-entity as a statutory undertaking.
Arbitral Tribunal May Impose Costs On Party Abusing Referral Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Compel Another's Participation In Arbitration : Supreme Court
Case Title: ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKH VERSUS ASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. & ANR., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2019
Citation :2024 LiveLaw (SC) 868
The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, the Arbitral Tribunal may impose costs on the Party who abused the process of law constraining another party to participate in the Arbitral Proceedings by taking advantage of minimal judicial interference at the referral stage.
“In order to balance such a limited scope of judicial interference with the interests of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the Tribunal ultimately finds to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to the arbitration.”, the court said.
Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Clauses In Public-Private Contracts Invalid; Can't Compel Selection Of Arbitrators From PSU's Panels : Supreme Court
Case details : CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION vs. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY C.A. No. 009486 - 009487 / 2019
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874
The Supreme Court on Friday (November 8) ruled against clauses allowing Public Sector Undertakings to unilaterally appoint arbitrators to decide disputes with private contractors.
The Constitution Bench held that while PSUs can maintain a panel of potential arbitrators, they cannot compel the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel.
The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was considering the validity of an arbitration clause which prescribes that the appointment of the arbitrator will happen from a panel of arbitrators curated by one of the parties, which is mostly a public sector undertaking (PSU) in majority of the cases.
Determining 'Seat' In International Arbitration : Supreme Court Takes Shift From 'Closest Connection Test', Says Express Designation Of Place Matters
Case Title: M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. VERSUS M/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE, ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 31 OF 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 871
In a key ruling on International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement grants non-exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign court, that court is considered the "seat of arbitration." The Court reaffirmed the BALCO principle that Indian courts lack supervisory jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for arbitrations seated abroad.
Taking a shift from the 'Close Connection Test' to determine the seat of the arbitration, the Court observed that “the more appropriate criterion for determining the seat of arbitration in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court is that where in an arbitration agreement there is an express designation of a place of arbitration anchoring the arbitral proceedings to such place, and there being no other significant contrary indicia to show otherwise, such place would be the 'seat' of arbitration even if it is designated in the nomenclature of 'venue' in the arbitration agreement.”
Unconditional Withdrawal Of Arbitrator Appointment Application Bars Second Application On Same Cause Of Action: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S HPCL BIO-FUELS LTD. VERSUS M/S SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12233 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 879
The Supreme Court observed that when a party seeking appointment of an arbitrator unconditionally withdraws its application, then the subsequent application for an appointment of an arbitrator on the same cause of action would be barred.
The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala ruled that Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) would be made applicable to applications seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) to restrain the party from filing second arbitrator appointment application when it had abandoned (unconditionally withdrawn the application without leave to file fresh application) the arbitration in its first application.
Case Title: M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS GENERAL MANAGER & ANR., SLP (C) NO. 2272 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Extending the time for an arbitral tribunal to pass its award, the Supreme Court recently observed that extension can be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period and the phrase "sufficient cause" under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should take color from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process (ie facilitating effective dispute resolution).
"The meaning of 'sufficient cause' for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process. The primary objective in rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted by the parties. Therefore, 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution", said a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta.
S. 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court
Case : Kirpal Singh Vs Government Of India
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 970
The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for the exclusion of the time spent in pursuing bona fide proceedings in a wrong forum from the computation of the period of limitation.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Limitation Act liberally as there is only a limited window to challenge an arbitral award.
Disputes Falling Exclusively Within Jurisdiction Of Statutory Authorities Aren't Arbitrable : Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Title: Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 981
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that disputes falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable.
While holding so, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the dispute related to wages and termination of an employee were non-arbitrable and would be exclusively dealt with by the statutory authorities established under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (“PW Act”) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).
Clarification On Award Can Be Issued Even After Arbitral Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio : Supreme Court
Case Title: NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VERSUS M/S. S.A. BUILDERS LTD.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1010
The Supreme Court observed that although the Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio after passing an award, it would still retain the limited jurisdiction to clarify or correct errors in an award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision allowing the respondent to seek clarification from the Arbitral Tribunal about whether post-award interest under Section 31(7)(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be calculated on the principal amount plus pre-award interest.
High Courts
Allahbad High Court
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court has held that the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not have the power to modify an award. The Court held that though parts of an award can be severed and set aside, provided such severance does not affect the remaining award.
“Reduction of interest is nothing but a modification of the original arbitration award, and accordingly, the same is illegal and against the principles established by the Supreme Court,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf relying on the decision of Supreme Court in on Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company Vs. Union of India and others.
Case Title: Dr. Rajeev Sinha vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136 [WRIT - C No. - 33840 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court has held that existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside an arbitral award passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Jhansi acting as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1965 for not following the directions given by the District Judge while allowing appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“This Court seriously deprecates the approach of the Arbitrator/Collector who is vested with statutory powers to determine lawful compensation as per the scheme of the Act of 1956 and, therefore, once the Court superior to him analyzed each and every aspect of the initial award dated 30.09.2010 as well as the arbitral award dated 15.09.2017 and set aside the same after recording findings on merits of the petitioner's claim as regards market value of the land on the date of notifications acquiring the land, the Arbitrator/Collector was bound to follow the quasi- judicial discipline and record finding on each of the parameters discussed by the learned District Judge”
Case Title: Gepdec Infratech Limited Thru Authorized Representative vs U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru Superintending Engineer Lucknow.
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar held that the allegation under Item No. 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn't automatically disqualify the arbitrator without disclosing any specific relationship between the arbitrator and the party. Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule states that doubts about an arbitrator's independence or impartiality can arise if they currently serve or have served as an arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties within the past three years.
The High Court noted that Section 11 delineates the procedure for arbitrator appointments, particularly Sub-sections (6) and (8), underscoring the High Court's role when parties fail to agree on an appointment. Sub-section (8) emphasizes the necessity for the arbitral institution, before appointing an arbitrator, to seek written disclosure from the prospective arbitrator in accordance with Section 12(1). The court is mandated to consider qualifications agreed upon by the parties, the contents of the disclosure, and other factors ensuring the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator.
Case Title: The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory.
Case Number: Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 16 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited to ascertain an error apparent on the face of the record.
Case Title: - State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 619 of 2023.
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not encompass long delays, and condonation can only be granted in exceptional cases where the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently.
Case Title: Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others.
Case Number: - APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 271 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf set aside an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by the District Judge, noting that the judge failed to give due consideration to Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. Since the limitation period for Section 34 commences upon the receipt of signed award copy, the bench held that it was incumbent on the judge to note the date on which the signed copy was received by the Appellant.
Case Title: M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad Thru. Authorised Representative Mr. Pramod Dave vs. U.P. State Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Kanpur Thru. Chairman And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 67 [WRIT - C No. - 3774 of 2023]
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral award passed in a reference made under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 must be challenged as per provisions of Section 19 of the MSMED Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 19 of the MSMED Act provides that any application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council under the MSED Act shall not be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not the supplier) deposits 75% of the decretal amount.
Arbitration Act| Debatable Questions Of Fact Cannot Be Decided In Proceedings U/ S 11(6): Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Neelkanth Construction vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 68
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the scope of judicial review in proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is very narrow. The Court held that debatable questions of fact cannot be gone into by the Court while adjudicating an application for appointment of arbitrator.
“The rival contentions regarding arbitrability, in my view, cannot be decided in the instant proceedings. Its adjudication requires appreciation of evidence. The scope of judicial review in deciding issue of arbitrability is very limited,” held Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta.
The Court relied on Vidya Drolia and Others vs. Gujarat Informatics Limited wherein the Supreme Court had held that the scope of adjudication under Section 11(6) is very narrow.
“In the said judgment, it has been observed that while deciding issue of arbitrability, the Court under Section 11(6) has a very limited power, confined to cases where there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is non-arbitrable.”
Case Title: M/s Jaypee Infratech Limited V. M/s Ehbh Services Private Limited And Another [Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No.2 Of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court has referred the question whether application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for time extension can only be heard by the Supreme Court or the High Court where the appointment of such arbitrator has been made by the Supreme Court or the High Court, as the case may be.
Further, the Court has raised a query regarding the powers of the 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act to adjudicate on an application under Section 29A of the Act.
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that award must be passed within 12 months from the date on which the arbitral tribunal enters reference. Sub-section (4) of Section 29A provides that mandate of the arbitral tribunal shall end within 12 months or at the expiry of the extended period provided the 'Court' extends the said period. Sub-section (6) of Section 29A empowers the 'Court' to substitute arbitrators while extending the said period.
Case Title: Sanjay Agarwal vs Rahul Agarwal And Ors.
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that the objections under Section 47 of the CPC are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award. It held that an arbitration award, not being issued by a "court," falls outside the definition of a decree as outlined in Section 2(2) of CPC. Moreover, once the award attains finality, any objections must be raised exclusively in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The High Court highlighted the nature and scope of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing its role in correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate courts. It held that the revisional jurisdiction is confined to addressing questions of jurisdiction and is not intended for re-examining or reassessing evidence on record.
The High Court dismissed the revisionist's argument regarding the maintainability of objections under Section 47 of the CPC at the execution stage. It held that the revisionist should have challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and that objections under Section 47 of CPC were not maintainable at the execution stage.
Compliance Of Section 21 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 Is Mandatory: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Samyam Industries and Others v Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd.
The Allahabad High Court has held that the compliance of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) is mandatory. Thus, arbitral proceedings would only commence once the notice invoking arbitration issued by the claimant is received by the respondent.
The Bench comprising Justice Manju Rani Chauhan was adjudicating a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by borrowers, challenging the arbitration proceedings initiated against them by Shivalik Small Finance Bank Ltd. without serving a Notice Invoking Arbitration. The Bench has quashed the arbitration proceedings for not complying with the requirements of Section 21 of Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd, Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023
The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court at pre-arbitration stage under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar also reiterated that after the judgment in Perkins an interested party cannot act as or appoint a sole arbitrator.
Case Title: North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd.
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction. It held that even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration agreement between the parties specifying a different jurisdiction based on their territorial situs.
Case Title: M/S Docket Care Systems vs M/S Hariwill Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that expression “in the manner directed by such court” in Section 19 of the Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 gives the discretion to the court to allow the predeposit to be made, if felt necessary, in installments also.
Case Title: M/S Devi Dayal Trust And Others V. M/S Rajhans Towers Pvt. Ltd. [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 NO. 2199 OF 2023]
The Allahabad High Court has held that once party has filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before one Court, he cannot raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of that Court in dealing with any application arising out of the same arbitration agreement in view of Section 42 of the Act.
Section 42 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in Part-I of the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under Part-I has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.
Case Title: M/s Geo Miller and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs UP Jal Nigam and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 330
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 330
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that if the High Court appoints the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, it has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 29A application for extending the mandate of the arbitrator.
While acknowledging that the issue of the appropriate court for Section 29A applications was pending before a larger bench, the High Court held that the current position continued to be governed by previous judgments such as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Manish Engineering Enterprises.
S.5 Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Application U/S 34 Arbitration Act, Timeline Provided To Be Adhered Strictly: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Sh. Dharmveer Tyagi And Others vs. Competent Authority, Dfcc, Special Land Acquisition (Joint Officer Organization) And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 325 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 257 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 325
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the timeline provided in Section 34(3) for challenging an arbitral award must be strictly adhered to.
Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a period of 3 months for challenging an arbitral award. Proviso to Section 34(3) empowers Court to condone a delay of 30 days if sufficient cause for delay is show, “but not thereafter.”
Special Appeal/ Letters Patent Appeal Against Order U/S.11 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Moksh Innovations Inc. Lko. Thru. Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht vs. E City Property Management And Services (P) Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Property Manager And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 324 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 266 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 324
The Allahabad High Court has held that by virtue of Section 11(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, special appeal and letters patent appeal against orders passed under Section 11(4), (5) and (6) of the Act is not maintainable. The Court held that since the Amending Act of 2019 which did away with Section 11(7) had not been notified by way of Official Gazette, the bar placed by Section 11(7) is still in force.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India V. Rampyari And Another
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 394 OF 2022
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that an arbitral award should only be set aside if it is clearly vitiated by "patent illegality" evident on the face of the record. The bench held that an award cannot be annulled merely due to an incorrect application of the law or misinterpretation of evidence.
Case Title: Chitra Misra And 13 Others v. M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director And Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2475 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Sole Arbitrator on grounds that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioners, private persons who claimed to be owners of part premises in question, and M/s Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd.
Arbitration Act | Once Party Aware Of Contents Of Award, Can't Claim Extension Of Invoking S.31(5): Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Bharatiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran V. Neeraj Sharma And Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 8 of 2020]
The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of signed copy of award being delivered to parties under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not to be construed narrowly. The Court held that once the party seeking extension of limitation by applying Section 31(5) of the is aware of the contents of the alleged unsigned award, the limitation cannot be extended.
Section 31(5) of Act of 1996 provides that after passing of an arbitral award, its signed copy must be delivered to each party.
Once Arbitral Tribunal In Place, Court's Consideration Of Section 9 Application Should Be Limited: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Ganga Prasad Memorial Trust and another vs DHK Eduserve Limited
Case Number: Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. - 161 Of 2024
The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the question as to the consideration of the grounds, upon which the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is based can only arise when it is being considered by the Court on the merits, i.e., when the court is called upon to apply its mind to the grounds urged in the application.
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Recall Or Modify Its Award Under Section 33: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India Vs Musafir And Others
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 41 of 2021
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the arbitral tribunal cannot recall or modify its award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that none of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996, give the arbitral tribunal the power to recall and modify its award. It held that any act which the arbitral tribunal is not empowered to do under the Arbitration Act is void ab initio.
Case Title: Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer vs Ms. Satendra Nath Sanjeev Kumar Architect, Contractors/Builders, Civil Engineers, And Colonisers
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 182 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the extent of intervention in appellate proceedings according to Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the grounds permissible under Section 34 for contesting the award. It held that the award need not be invalidated unless it is tainted by an evident "patent illegality" discernible on the surface of the record, with the caution that setting aside the award should not be solely based on erroneous legal application or evidence appreciation.
Case Title: State of U.P. vs Nath Construction And Another
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 167 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the requirement to provide reasons by the arbitrator, in accordance with Section 31(3) of the Act, hinges on the pleadings and available documents on record. It held that if the party neither expressly denied the claim of the other party nor supported its case accurately, then it's evident that the award cannot be deemed flawed, especially when the arbitrator is not expected to speculate on matters that are not presented before it.
Case Title: Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 10525 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the Zonal Micro and Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Meerut Zone, Meerut under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as the petitioners, Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited and others, had refused to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 19 of the MSME Act. The Court held that even though principles of natural justice have been violated, it does not bar the Court from relegating the parties to alternate remedy available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Smt. Jasvinder Kaur v. National Highways Authority Of India And 2 Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 264 of 2023]
The Allahabad High Court has held that the arbitrator is obligated to deliver signed copies of arbitral award to each party to the arbitration. It has been held that irrespective of the fact that no specific request has been made by the parties for certified copy of the award, the arbitrator must deliver the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Section 31(5) of the Act unequivocally imposes an obligation upon the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy of the arbitral award to each party involved in the arbitration. This statutory duty is not contingent upon a party's request for the award; rather, it is an imperative that must be fulfilled by the Arbitrator irrespective of any such request. The failure to comply with this statutory obligation can lead to significant procedural irregularities, potentially undermining the arbitral process and the enforceability of the award,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Savitri Devi v. Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Elucidating on the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Ors (2019), the Allahabad High Court has held that “retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos.” For context, in Tarsem Singh (supra), the Apex Court held that the provisions regarding solatium and interest provided in the Land Acquisition Act would apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. The court also held that this ruling of the Supreme Court shall apply to all pending cases.
Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Part Of Award Dealing With Non-Arbitrable Dispute
Case Title: M/S Shyam Lalit Dubey And Another vs. Union Of India Thru. Ganeral Manager Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 446
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes regarding works undertaken by party independent of the contract which contains the arbitration agreement cannot be determined under such arbitration agreement.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held, “wherein some extra work etc. pertaining to the same contract has been undertaken may form part of the arbitrable dispute, however, in an arbitral dispute with reference to quantum meruit or Section 70 of the Act, 1872, for a work undertaken which is wholly independent of the contract containing the arbitration clause, the same cannot become an arbitral dispute.”
Case Title: Sanjit Singh Salwan And 4 Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan And 2 Others
Case No: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 356 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes relating to public trusts which are enlisted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that Section 89 of CPC which provides for settlement of disputes outside Court does not override Section 92 as Section 92 is a specific provision dealing with disputes regarding Trusts.
Receipt Of Arbitral Award By Party A Sine Qua Non For Limitation U/S 34(3) To Begin, General Clauses Act Does Not Apply: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Madan Pal Singh And 2 Others v. M/S Ambika Installments Limited And Another
Case No. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 8 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has held that receipt of the award by the party is a sine qua non for limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to begin and definition of “service by post” under Section 27 of the General Clauses does not apply.
The Court observed that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act which defined service by post in a Central Legislation if the words 'serve' or either of the expressions 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used to mean that service is deemed to be effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. It was, thus, held that this definition is not applicable to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act as it uses the phrase 'receipt of award by the party'.
Application U/S. 34 Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act Not To Be Dismissed For Non-filing Of Certified Copy Of Arbitral Award If Explanation Provided: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Ram Babu Vishkarma v. M/S Shriram Finance Ltd and Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:159310-DB
The Allahabad High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has observed that if a certified/signed copy of the award cannot be obtained and filed with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, filing a copy of the award along with an explanation would be an appropriate exercise.
Petition Under Article 227 Not Maintainable Against Orders Of Tribunal When Remedies U/S 34 & 37 Of Arbitration Act Are Available: Allahabad HC
Case Title: U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Thru. Housing Commissioner and Others v. Universal Contractors and Engineers Ltd., Thru. Authorized Signatory
Case Reference: 2024:AHC-LKO:68529
The Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench of Justice Subahsh Vidyarthi observed that petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the petitioners to provide a copy of the contract between the parties and the final bill to the claimant, cannot be entertained. In the present case, a petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution was filed against orders passed by an Arbitral Tribunal.
Article 227 Is A Constitutional Provision Which Remains Untouched By Non-Obstante Clause Of S. 5 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad HC
Case Title: - Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal v. Sudhir Mohan Agrawal
Case Reference: 2024:AHC:162344
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory policy as adumbrated.
While Filing Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act, Applicant Is Not Required To Dispute Contents Of Plaint: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Atul Pratap Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 3 Others
Case Number: 2024:AHC:167917-DB
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has held that there is no requirement for the applicant to dispute the contents of the plaint, while filling in an application under Section 8. The very fact that an application has been filed necessarily means that the applicant wants to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Additionally, the court held that the scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the Court under Section 8 and 11 of the Act is identical, but extremely limited and restricted with little interference from court.
Arbitration Act | New Evidence Cannot Be Adduced At S.37 Stage, Bar Of Limitation U/S 34(3) Is Attracted: Allahabad HC
Case Title: State Of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others v. M/S Virat Construction
Case Reference: 2024:AHC:171241-DB
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, held that the amendment obtained or raising fresh grounds virtually amounts to file a fresh appeal and would be barred by limitation as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Hence, it is not open for the appellant to raise any new ground or adduce any fresh evidence in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Since Award Is A Deemed Decree, Execution Can Be Initiated Anywhere Where Decree Can Be Executed: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: National Highway Authority Of India And Another Versus Jagpal Singh And 2 Others
Case Reference: 2024:AHC:175916
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari affirmed that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be initiated anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed and there is no requirement of obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding
Whether Non-Signatory Bound By Arbitration Agreement Can Be Decided By Tribunal, Not Referral Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad HC
Case Title: Ram Taulan Yadav And Another versus Himanshu Kesarwani And 2 Others
Case Reference: ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 95 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta affirmed that referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act stage cannot examine as to whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement or not. Such an issue requires factual determination which can be decided by the arbitral tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India v. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited And Another
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 423 of 2024
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that cases where appointment of arbitrators is through contracts which contemplate such appointment and statutory appointment of arbitrators are two separate classes to cases and the same are distinguishable on facts.
National Highways Authority of India approached the High Court against order of the Additional District Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby it was held that the compensation granted to the respondent was not in accordance with law.
Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Post Expiry Of Tenancy Agreement: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Anoop Maheshwari v. Thomas T. Kurian [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 157 of 2024]
While entertaining a revision petition related to a tenancy agreement, the Allahabad High Court has held that a clause for arbitration cannot be invoked for any disputes that arise after the contract has come to an end.
“… it clearly transpires that existence of a contract is necessary for invocation of arbitration clause prescribed under the agreement as the clause would perish with the contract,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: SEW Vizag Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd vs Board of Trustees for the Port of Visakhapatnam
Case Number: I.A.No.1 of 2023 in/and ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.17 of 2023
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of has held the High Court, not being a Court within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 29A.
Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act states that if the award is not made within the period specified of six months or the extended period of parties' mutual consent, any of the parties can apply to the court for an extension of time.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Writ Petition Not A Remedy For Execution Of Arbitration Award: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India vs M/s. Vijayanagaram Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that that it lacks the authority in writ petition to enforce an award issued by an arbitrator when it is already challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India Vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Others, [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 705] and highlighted the Supreme Court's disapproval of entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the execution of awards passed by arbitral tribunals or courts. The Supreme Court, in the cases, expressed its disapproval of a judgment and order passed under Article 226, directing the NHAI to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded by the arbitrator and allowing the original landowners to withdraw the said amount.
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R.I. Chagla stayed an arbitral award noting that the Arbitrator contravened the settled law that for a claim for damages, there must be proof of actual loss which is sine qua non for such claim. It held that the Arbitrator failed to consider the proof of loss while awarding damages to the Claimant.
Case Title: Era International v. Aditya Birla Global Trading India Pvt. Ltd, Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 27638 of 2023
The High Court of Bombay has held that that provisions of Section 12(5) r/w 7th Schedule of the A&C Act also apply to Institutional Arbitrations.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that rules of an arbitral institution cannot override the provisions of the A&C Act. It held that even if parties agree to institutional arbitration, it does not exclude the Court's power to decide on the termination of an arbitrator's mandate if a controversy arises regarding the grounds mentioned in Section 14(1)(a).
Case Title: Mahavir Enterprise vs Chandravati Sunder Salian.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2023.
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that claims that are clearly time-barred must not be entertained, as doing so would perpetuate injustice rather than serving justice. The High Court held that even the slightest doubt regarding the timeliness of a claim warrants its referral to arbitration, as interfering in such matters would encroach upon the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/s.Paresh Construction & Foundation Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.18473 OF 2023 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO.13 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Bharti Dangre held although there might be an impression that with the legal termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandateupon the expiration of one year from the reference entry, as per Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 there might be a technical difficulty. However, it held that such technicalities should not thwart the overarching objective of the proceedings.
Case Title: M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd vs M/s. Shilpi Engineering Pvt.Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 779 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1131 OF 2018.
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R.I. Chagla held that where the arbitral award is in the nature of money decree, there is a requirement for deposit of 100% of the awarded amount for grant of stay. Further, it held that there is no distinction in the application of parameters between stays sought under Section 36(3) and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, as neither provision specifies such differentiation.
Cause Title: Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.
The Bombay High Court has rejected a construction company's claim that the dispute resolution clause in the General Conditions of Contract with Mumbai Municipal Corporation constituted a valid arbitration agreement due to a lack of mutual intention to arbitrate.
The court pointed out that the title "Finality of Decision and Non-Arbitrability" of the clause clearly indicates the parties did not intend for it to serve as an arbitration agreement. The bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla further opined that mere declaration of the adjudication committee's decision as "final and binding" did not inherently indicate an intention to arbitrate.
The court added that the clause does not even make any reference to arbitration or appointment of an arbitrator, therefore, this dispute resolution clause did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement.
Case Title: Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd vs Saumya Mining Limited and Another
The Bombay High Court bench comprising Justice Neela Gokhale held that in cases where an application has been made in a court concerning an arbitration agreement, that court alone possesses jurisdiction over an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Further, the bench held that even in agreements where no specific seat is mentioned, multiple courts may potentially have jurisdiction, depending on where a part of the cause of action arises.
Case Title: Ketan Champaklal Divecha vs DGS Township Pvt. Ltd. & another
The Bombay High Court bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale held that individual and minority members of a society cannot invoke arbitration clauses in development agreements against the developer. The bench held that when a society and its members enter into a development agreement with the developer, the society speaks for its members and the members would lose their independent rights qua the society.
Case Title: M/s Bafna Udyog vs Micro & Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council and anr.
The Bombay High Court bench comprising Justice Neela Gokhle held that the parties should have a separate arbitration agreement between them for reference to arbitration under Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 by Micro & Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council. The bench rejected the argument that Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act 2006 provides for a deemed arbitration agreement, thereby, eliminating the necessity for a separate arbitration agreement between the parties.
Arbitrators Can't Unilaterally Modify Fee, Needs Parties' Consent: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shanklesha Construction and Others vs Ashok Mohanraj Chhajed
The Bombay High Court bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale held that any amendments, revisions, or modifications in fees of an arbitrator must only occur with the consent of the parties, as outlined in the tripartite agreement and per Schedule IV of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court also held that the arbitrator is not bound by the strict rules of the CPC and the Evidence Act and can employ a reasonable approach while judging the proceedings, in light of the principles of natural justice. Any grievances related to the conduct of the proceedings can be raised by the aggrieved party under the grounds mentioned in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) Vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV where the Supreme Court issued guidelines on determination of arbitrator's fees, emphasizing the need for a tripartite agreement, setting out the fee components. The Supreme Court further elucidated in its judgment that the 'sum in dispute' encompasses the entire amount to be adjudicated upon, allowing the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal to compute and charge fees for both the claim and the counter-claim. The High Court held that any amendments, revisions, or modifications in fees must only occur with the consent of the parties, as outlined in the tripartite agreement.
Case Title: K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infra Projects J.V vs Municipal Corporation of the city of Ichalkarnji
The Bombay High Court bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre held that the power to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal or arbitrator under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lies exclusively with the court that appointed the arbitrator(s). The bench held that the term 'Court' in Section 29A must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Court's power to appoint arbitrators under Section 11.
The High Court referred to its decision in Cabra Instalaciones Y. Services vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, where the arbitral tribunal was constituted by an order from the Supreme Court under Section 11(5) of the Act. The judgment specifically held that the High Court, exercising power under Section 29A, does not possess the authority to appoint a substitute arbitral tribunal or any member thereof. Further, it emphasized that in the context of international commercial arbitration, such powers exclusively belong to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the judgment pointed out that the jurisdiction conferred upon the “Court” by Section 29A precludes other courts from exercising similar powers.
Fraud Being Non-Arbitrable Due To Complexity Is Archaic Position, Contemporary Arbitration Practice Has Evolved: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Nilesh Shejwal vs Agrowon Agrotech Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court single bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre held that due to an evolution in contemporary arbitration where there was a belief that fraud disputes were unsuitable for arbitration, today, arbitral tribunals routinely navigate through extensive material in various dispute types. Thus, it held that the previous notion of fraud being non-arbitrable due to complexity is archaic and no longer applicable in modern arbitration practices.
The High Court emphasized the distinction between rights in rem, which are adjudicated by courts or statutory tribunals as they pertain to rights exercisable against the world at large, and actions in personem, which determine the rights and interests of parties to the subject matter of disputes and are arbitrable. Contrary to past views that fraud disputes involving voluminous evidence were unfit for arbitration, the High Court noted that there is an evolution of contemporary arbitration practice, wherein arbitral tribunals routinely navigate through extensive material in various dispute types. Thus, it held that the previous notion of fraud being non-arbitrable due to complexity is archaic and no longer applicable in modern arbitration practices.
Case Title: Kirloskar Pneumatic Company v. Kataria Sales Corporation, Commercial Arbitration Petition, No. 16 of 2023
The High Court of Bombay has held that there is no requirement of Section 21 notice for re-commencing the arbitration after the first award is set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in such a situation there would be no requirement of a fresh invocation notice as the opposite party would already be aware of the existence of the dispute.
Case Title: Riak Insurance and Financial Services & Ors. vs HDFC Bank Limited
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 30 of 2021
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the ineligibility of the arbitrator could only be waived if both parties agree by an express agreement in writing as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Parties' consent cannot be implied otherwise.
Case Title: Cardinal Energy and Infra Structure Private Ltd. vs Subramanya Construction and Development Co. Ltd.
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.2603 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R I Chagla held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the Arbitration Agreement and to implead the non-signatory.
The Court held that the absence of a specific prayer for the impleadment of a non-signatory in a Section 11 Application does not preclude the application of the 'group of companies' doctrine by the arbitral tribunal.
The High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) has referred the issue of maintainability of a Section 29A application seeking extension of the arbitration before the Commercial Court to a larger bench in view of conflicting views by two co-ordinate benches of the High Court.
The Bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed that the since Section 29A of the A&C Act not just involves extension of the mandate of the arbitrator, but also questions relating to the substitution, termination and reduction of the fees of the arbitrator, therefore, the power under Section 29A can only lie with the High Court in view of the appointing power given to it under Section 11 of the Act.
However, the Court remarked that since conflicting decisions are taken by the two co-ordinate benches, Judicial Propriety demands that the issue must be referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
Case Title: N.P. Enterprises v. General Manager, Western Railway – Commercial Arbitration Application No. 30940 of 2023
The High Court of Bombay has held that appointment of arbitrator from a narrow panel of 4 arbitrators is violative of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. It held that such practice of preparing narrow panels restricts free choice and give rise to suspicion that favourites are chosen.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that independence and impartiality of arbitrators is a hallmark of arbitration and the rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice, which is applicable with equal force in all quasi-judicial proceedings.
Case Title: Glencore India Pvt Ltd v. Amma Lines Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 42 of 2024
The High Court of Bombay has held that an arbitrator's mandate would not terminate when the proceedings are not completed within timelines agreed by the parties, if the delays in the conduct of the proceedings are attributable to the party seeking termination of the mandate.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that generally, in an arbitration not governed by Section 29A, the arbitrator's mandate expires upon its failure to conclude the proceedings within the time period agreed by the parties, however, it would not hold true when the tribunal acted expeditiously and the delays in proceedings were on account of fault of the parties themselves.
Case Title: M/s Halliburton India Operations Private Limited vs Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.:Commercial Appeal (L) No. 17720 of 2024
The Bombay High Court division bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil held that the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to cases where the lower court's order was arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or ignored settled legal principles on interlocutory injunctions.
Section 37 of the Arbitration Act allows appeals against specific orders related to arbitration, including refusals to refer to arbitration, measures under Section 9, and decisions on arbitral awards under Section 34.
Case Title: CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd and anr vs M/s. SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. And ors
Case Number: I.A. (L) NO.6246 OF 2024 IN COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L)NO.5565 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has held that even in a case which does not fall under the second proviso of the Section 36(3), by relying on the first proviso, the Court can consider whether to grant unconditional stay of the award or not. Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the enforcement of arbitral awards. It outlines the procedure for enforcing an arbitral award once the time for challenging the award under Section 34 has expired.
Case title: Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited vs. Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta & Ors. (OS-COMAP-90-2020 and COMAP-91-2020)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
The Bombay High Court set-aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as the Arbitrator relied on a non-executed agreement for arriving at the decision. The Court stated that it can annul an arbitral award under Section 34 if the arbitrator adopted a non-judicial approach. The Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresa were considering a commercial appeal filed by the appellant against Bottom of Forma Single Judge Bench's decision to set aside the Arbitral Award under Section 34 of A&C Act.
Individual Members Of Society Can't Be Considered Signatories To The Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shankar Vithoba Desai And Ors Vs Gauri Associates And Anr
Case Number: COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L.) NO. 21070 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that individual members of the Society cannot be considered signatories to the arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, as they do not individually participate in its formation or execution of arbitration clause.
Courts Can't Constantly Interfere And Micro-Manage Arbitral Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ambrish H. Soni vs Mr Chetan Narendra Dhakan & Ors.
Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 100 OF 2024 with COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 33385 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that the court cannot constantly interfere with and micromanage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals. The bench held that the scope of judicial interference under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act is limited in nature.
Doctrine Of Separability; Arbitration Agreement Survives Termination Of Main Contract: Bombay High Court
Case Title: EBIX Cash Pvt. Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.6707 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. G. Avachat and Justice Neeraj P. Dhote has held that an arbitration agreement survives the termination of the main contract facilitating the resolution of disputes arising under or in connection with the contract. Therefore, the bench dismissed a writ petition noting that the dispute was arbitral and fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause.
Which Court Can Extend Arbitration Deadlines? Bombay High Court Provides Clarification
Case Title: Sheela Chowgule vs Vijay V. Chowgule and ors
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 88 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes has held that when the High Court constitutes an arbitral tribunal, the High Court holds the jurisdiction to extend the time for completing the arbitration process.
Further, the bench clarified that if the tribunal was constituted through an agreement between the parties, the application for extending time can be addressed by the principal civil court with original jurisdiction, which includes both the district court and the High Court.
Personal Hearings Not Always Necessary For Arbitrator Appointment If Pleadings Are Complete: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Universal Builders In the matter between : Vascon Engineers Limited Versus Universal Builders
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 23757 OF 2024 IN COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L.) NO. 17767 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that while personal hearings for all parties can be beneficial in proceedings to enforce the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6), it is not always necessary.
The bench held that when an arbitration agreement is clearly established in the pleadings and the dispute is not evidently stale or time-barred, it is unnecessary to delay the consideration of an application under Section 11. It noted that if the pleadings are complete and all relevant issues are adequately documented, the application should be considered without requiring additional personal hearings.
Section 14 Of Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Kisan Moulding Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) Konkan Thane & Anr.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.28278 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.25371 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes time consumed in a proceeding initiated before a Court not having the jurisdiction, applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.The bench of Justice R.I. Chagla excluded 272 days spent in prosecuting a recall application of the arbitral award before the MSME Council. The court observed that a party prosecuting its case in good faith and due diligence, and the prior proceedings were riddled with defect of jurisdiction would get the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the time consumed in such proceedings would stand excluded from the purview of limitation.
Bombay High Court Reaffirms Binding Nature Of Emergency Arbitrator's Decision, Grants Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Goel & Anr. vs. EbixCash Limited & Ors.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 25579 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has observed that the object and intent of section 9 of the Arbitration Act is to support Arbitration and not defeat and/or permit parties to detract from the very process of arbitration. Therefore, party autonomy being the bedrock of arbitration, this would necessarily apply from the agreement to the rendering of the final arbitral award. The court reiterated that once a party agrees to institutional rules and participates in an emergency arbitration proceeding, it cannot later claim that the Emergency Arbitrator's ruling is non-binding or invalid. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the Emergency Arbitrator's decision was an “order” and not a “final award”. It noted that the obstructionist conduct of the party would be a material fact to consider while granting interim relief in an application filed under section 9 of the Act.
Scope Of Examination By Referral Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Is Limited, Substantive Issues To Be Dealt With By Tribunal: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tata Capital Limited Versus Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
Case Reference: 2024:BHC-OS:16394
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that the scope of examination under section 11 (6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should be confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section 7 of the Act. Similarly, the validity of an arbitration agreement, in view of Section 7 of the Act, should be restricted to the requirement of formal validity such as the requirement that the agreement be in writing.
Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act To Challenge Award Passed U/S 18(4) Of MSMED Act Is Governed By Agreement Between Parties: Bombay HC
Case Title: Rohit Sood v. Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Reference: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.37553 OF 2022, ARBITRATION PETITION (ARBP) (L) NO.28089 OF 2022
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Jitendra S. Jain And M.S. Sonak, held that the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) to challenge the award passed under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act would be governed by the agreement between the parties which has conferred exclusive jurisdiction to a particular Court. In this case, a case was referred to the High Court to resolve the conflict between two judgments.
Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Discretion To Change Venue Of Arbitral Proceedings
Case Title: Dhule Municipal Commissioner vs. M/s Borse Borthers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.7735 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker has held that an arbitrator has the authority to change the venue to a conveniently located place even if the venue is specified in the agreement. The court held that the arbitrator may shift the venue if conducting proceedings at the agreed venue would be detrimental to the arbitration process. It observed that Section 20(3) does not completely bar the change of venue without the consent of the parties, even when the venue is agreed upon in the contract.
Non-Compete Clause Is Invalid Post-Termination Of Contract As It Results In Restraint Of Trade: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Injunction
Case Title: Indus Power Tech Inc. v. M/s. Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: 2024:BHC-OS:16749
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil has held that though a non-compete clause can operate validly during the term of the agreement. But it would not be valid post-termination of the agreement as it would result in restraint of trade prohibited by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Additionally, the court noted that it is required to consider the legal effect of Clause 3 of the MSA after its termination. This can be examined in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 notwithstanding the fact that such a plea was not raised earlier in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act.
Arbitration Proceedings Can't Be Commenced Against Third Parties Who Are Not Parties To Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: AVENUES SEASONS PROPERTIES LLP VS. NISSA HOOSAIN NENSEY & ORS.
Case Numbers: APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2024 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 18441 OF 2021
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil has held that arbitration proceedings cannot be commenced against third parties who have not signed the Arbitration Agreement. The court observed that either the developer or the society, who has signed the Development Agreement can invoke the arbitration agreement in case of dispute. A party who is not mentioned in the Development Agreement and has not signed the contract cannot be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: M/s. Duro Shox Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Case Reference: 2024:BHC-AUG:25926
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker held that when the 'Award' is made by the Facilitation Council / Tribunal by exercising jurisdiction vested in it, however erroneous the 'Award' may be, the same has to be challenged only by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Party Can Waive Arbitrator's Ineligibility U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act By Express Agreement In Writing: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/S. TRULY PEST SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PRINCIPAL CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 583
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil affirmed that once an ineligibility to act as Arbitrator is waived by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, waiving party is prohibited from claiming ineligibility of the Arbitrator for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the petitioner had waived the ineligibility of the arbitrator by sending a signed letter.
High Court As Court Of Record Can Recall Or Review Orders Passed U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shailesh Ranka and others Vs. Windsor Machines Limited and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 585
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Manish Pitale has held that the moment it becomes clear that the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is being exercised by the “High Court” and not by an authority in the form of the “Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him”, there can be no confusion about the fact that as a constitutional court and court of record, this Court can exercise power of review even in the context of order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the court passed the impugned order in which application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed by misconstruing the facts of the case.
Court Cannot Go Into Merits While Enforcing Foreign Award U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Neilan International Co Ltd vs Powerica Ltd
Case Reference:COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 416 OF 2019
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S Doctor has held that jurisdiction of enforcement court under section 48 of the Arbitration is very limited and while enforcing the award the court cannot go into the merits of the case.
Case Title: Gulshan Townplanners LLP v. Gulshan Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 34078 of 2023
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that Section 9 of the A&C Act is not the correct mechanism to obtain relief against an entity when the privity of contract is absent between
After Execution Of Sale Deed, Arbitration Clause Mentioned In Agreement For Sale Becomes Ineffective: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP v. Sharp Properties
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 618
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla has held that the Agreement for sale has come to an end by the execution of the Deed of Conveyance / Sale Deed. It is well settled that once a Conveyance is executed, the object, purpose, effectiveness and validity of the Agreement for sale comes to an end. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the Agreement comes to an end as the Agreement stands fully discharged and does not have any legal effect upon the execution of the Conveyance.
SARFAESI And Arbitration Proceedings Can Proceed Parallely As Nature Of Both Proceedings Is Distinct: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Paul Packaging Private Limited (COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO. 25050 OF 2023)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 619
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Advait M Sethna has affirmed that SARFAESI proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings, while arbitration is in the context of an adjudicatory proceedings. The SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration proceedings thus can proceed parallely.
The court further observed that the role of referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act is very limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Case Title: Deepak Manaklal Katariay V/s. Ahsok Motilal Katariya and Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.2315 OF 2015
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Amit Borkar has held that maintainability and jurisdiction cannot be used interchangeably as they connote different things. Lack of jurisdiction results in the nullity of proceedings, as the court inherently lacks authority to adjudicate. Non-compliance with maintainability bars leads to dismissal without deciding the merits of the case but does not affect the court's inherent power.
High Court Under Article 226/227 Can Examine Validity Of Interlocutory Orders Passed By Arbitrator: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology Versus M/s. Kay Vee Enterprises (WRIT PETITION NO. 9868 / 2024)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 635
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Shailesh P. Brahme and S.G. Mehare has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not excluded from examining the validity of the interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitrator.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Suresh Dhanuka vs Shahnaz Husain
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Krishna Rao held that while interpreting the arbitration agreements, the courts should have a presumption in favour of arbitration of the dispute and the court could only interfere if the party shows prima facie non-existence of valid arbitration agreement. It held that Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 give the arbitrator or the tribunal the primary authority to determine the questions of non-arbitrability of the disputes. Further, it held that Section 16 confers significant powers upon the tribunal to determine any objections concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.
Case Title: R S Fuel Pvt Ltd vs Ankit Metal And Power Ltd
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that neither the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nor the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 allows a party's request to halt the publication of an arbitral award to the extent of its reliance on another party's counter-clam. The bench noted that the notion of splitting an arbitral award for this purpose is unnatural and unsupported by law.
The High Court noted that Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC applies to the institution or continuation of suits and proceedings against the corporate debtor, including arbitration proceedings. However, the High Court noted that the Respondent, who was also the claimant in the arbitration, cannot rely on Section 14(1)(a) to impede the publication of the arbitral award.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that consumer forum cannot assume jurisdiction when a special statue prescribes for arbitration and designates a forum for adjudication of disputes. It held that a special law takes precedence over a general law.
The High Court, referred to Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, and held that the dispute between the Petitioner co-operative society and Complainant should have been referred to arbitration as per the specific provision of the Act. The High Court observed that both the District Forum and State Commission failed to take into account the statutory provisions, specifically overlooking the jurisdictional limitations imposed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act.
Case Title: RKD Niraj JV vs The Union Of India.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the clause in General Conditions of Contract stipulating appointment of a panel of three gazetted railway officers for arbitration violated Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules of the Act.
The High Court noted that the Clause 64(3)(a)(ii) of the GCC mandated an agreement to arbitration under three gazetted railway officers, subject to a specified rank. The High Court noted that Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, in conjunction with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules, guards against the appointment of arbitrators with potential conflicts of interest. It highlighted Entry-1 of the Seventh Schedule, which specifically bars arbitrators with relationships or conflicts with the parties, counsel, or if the arbitrator has a business relationship with a party.
Case Title: Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. Vs. Uma Earth Movers and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that both Principal Civil Court and Commercial Division of the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 9 petition if the claim amount is between Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore. It rejected the contention that the City Civil Court doesn't have jurisdiction to receive or try the first application under Section 9.
The High Court held that Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, meticulously defined the term "Court," designating the forum where a party is obligated to bring a subject matter related to arbitration for adjudication. It referred to a Notification published on 20.3.2020 in the Kolkata Gazette Extraordinary by the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal. This notification, executed under the authority granted by section 3(1-A) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, altered the landscape by delineating the pecuniary jurisdiction of both the City Civil Court and the Calcutta High Court. The notification specifies the pecuniary jurisdictions of these courts in relation to the value of commercial disputes, establishing concurrent jurisdiction for commercial disputes ranging from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore. Notably, considering the Petitioner's claim of approximately Rs. 67.53 lakhs, the High Court held that both the City Civil Court and the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court would have concurrent jurisdiction.
Arbitration And Conciliation Act Does Not Overlap West Bengal Public Land Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Rolta Infrastructure and Technology Services Private Limited vs Department of Information Technology And Electronics, Government of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that there exists no conflict between the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the provisions of The West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962. It held that both statutes operate within distinct domains and do not overlap in their scope or application.
Addressing potential conflicts with other statutes, the Court rejected arguments suggesting conflict between the Arbitration Act, and the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962. It asserted that both statutes operate independently, and the former does not override the atter. Moreover, the High Court disagreed with contentions regarding the exclusivity of the judicial authority under the 1962 Act, noting that there is no statutory prohibition on invoking arbitration clauses even when proceedings are initiated under the 1962 Act.
Case Title: Tarit Mitra and Anr. vs Sharad Goenka
The High Court of Calcutta bench comprising Justice Sugato Majumdar adjudicated on a matter involving a civil suit for possession of premises from the tenants and an application made under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the tenants seeking to refer the dispute to arbitration based on the tenancy agreement which had expired a few years ago and was not novated or renewed. The High Court emphasized that while the tenancy may be established by conduct, arbitration cannot be inferred from the parties' conduct alone. Therefore, it was concluded that there existed no arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.
The High Court further noted that there was no explicit agreement showing that disputes related to tenancies should be resolved through arbitration. Additionally, the other two incidental agreements were not renewed, and there was no written indication that disputes between the parties should be referred to arbitration, as required by Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It emphasized that while a tenancy may be established by conduct, arbitration cannot be inferred from the parties' conduct alone. The original agreement had a clause stating that disputes under the tenancy agreement should be referred to arbitration, but as the tenancy was renewed and novated, the parties were not in agreement regarding the applicability of the arbitration clause.
Case Title: RKD Niraj JV vs The Union Of India.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the clause in General Conditions of Contract stipulating appointment of a panel of three gazetted railway officers for arbitration violated Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules of the Act.
The High Court noted that the Clause 64(3)(a)(ii) of the GCC mandated an agreement to arbitration under three gazetted railway officers, subject to a specified rank. The High Court noted that Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, in conjunction with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules, guards against the appointment of arbitrators with potential conflicts of interest. It highlighted Entry-1 of the Seventh Schedule, which specifically bars arbitrators with relationships or conflicts with the parties, counsel, or or if the arbitrator has a business relationship with a party.
Case Title: Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. Vs. Uma Earth Movers and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that both Principal Civil Court and Commercial Division of the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 9 petition if the claim amount is between Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore. It rejected the contention that the City Civil Court doesn't have jurisdiction to receive or try the first application under Section 9.
The High Court held that Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, meticulously defined the term "Court," designating the forum where a party is obligated to bring a subject matter related to arbitration for adjudication.
It referred to a Notification published on 20.3.2020 in the Kolkata Gazette Extraordinary by the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal. This notification, executed under the authority granted by section 3(1-A) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, altered the landscape by delineating the pecuniary jurisdiction of both the City Civil Court and the Calcutta High Court. The notification specifies the pecuniary jurisdictions of these courts in relation to the value of commercial disputes, establishing concurrent jurisdiction for commercial disputes ranging from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore. Notably, considering the Petitioner's claim of approximately Rs. 67.53 lakhs, the High Court held that both the City Civil Court and the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court would have concurrent jurisdiction.
Case Title: SRMB Srijan Limited vs Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited.
Case Number: IA No: GA 1 of 2022 In A.P.- COM 281 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that for an unconditional stay of an arbitral award on pretext of fraud, there should prima facie case of fraud which should be evident on the face of the record without the necessity of a detailed or through examination. The bench held that fraud must be evident and reprehensible, with a substantial impact on the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Case Number: A.P. COM 41 of 2024.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the word “Court” in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator takes the character of the appointing authority under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, it held that can only be the Court which has the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11.
Case Title: The Secretary, E & NF Railway Junior Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Eastern Railway vs Sri Jyotish Chandra Sarkar & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. No. 3243 of 2013
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that disputes concerning the management, constitution, or business of the society, between the society and its members or those claiming through them, are subject to arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Therefore, it set aside orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for entertaining the complaint.
Case Title: Tree House Education And Accessories Ltd. Versus Holy Trust School
Case Number: AP/24/2024
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that it would be an unnatural construction of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where a party with a bona fide and a genuine claim is left in the lurch on the defence of the claim being barred by limitation. It held that when parties engage in constant communication for the settlement of claims, it would be unjust to dismiss a claim solely on the grounds of being time-barred.
Case Title: United Machinery & Appliances v. Greaves Cotton Limited, CS. 2 of 2015
The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application filed under Section 8 of the A&C Act by observing that the allegations of fraud and forgery would be serious in nature when the cognizance of the same is take by the magistrate.
The bench of Justice Krishna Rao relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasiva, (2016) 10 SCC 386 and Rashid Raza vs. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710 to hold that dispute would not be referred to arbitration when the allegations of fraud and forgery are serious in nature and goes to the existence of the agreement containing arbitration clause.
Case Title: M/s Fullerton India Credit Company Limited vs Ms Manju Khati
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that a certified copy of the original agreement 'attested by a Notary Public' is sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. Once filed, the courts must refer the parties to arbitration.
Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act provides, “The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.”
Case Title: Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v. Hindusthan Copper Limited. IA. No. GA. 5 of 2021 in EOS. 11 of 2003
The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application by Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL) under Sections 48/49 of the A&C Act seeking to refuse enforcement of the foreign award in favour of the Centrotrade Minerals.
The bench of Justice Sugato Majmudar held that once the enforceability of an award is affirmed by the Supreme Court, it cannot be opposed on a new ground which could have been taken in earlier proceedings in relation to the enforceability. It held that such an application would be barred by constructive res-judicata.
Case Title: UpHealth Holdings Inc v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd, AP-COM/490/2024
The High Court of Calcutta has held that ease of doing business in india with indian entities is also a matter of 'Public Policy'. These observations were made by the High Court while hearing an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act at post award stage in arbitration with seat in United States (US).
The Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the fruits of the award must be made real and realizable so that the award is not rendered illusory or meaningless. It held that Courts must make serious attempts to protect awarded amount so that the awards are enforced and do not become mere paper awards.
Case Title: Uphealth Holdings Inc v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd, AP-COM/490/2024
The High Court of Calcutta has held that power of a Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act are wider than the powers of a Court under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. It held that unlike under CPC, the dissipation of assets is not a mandatory requirement for interim relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur a petitioner under Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot be burdened with the rigours of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC.
Case Title: Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt Ltd v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd, RVWO No. 38 of 2023
The High Court of Calcutta has held that a policy circular issued by a parent company contemplating arbitration would not be an arbitration agreement if it requires fresh consent of the contractor to refer the dispute to arbitration.
The bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that when for existing contracts, the circular required consent of the contractor for reference to arbitration, it cannot be construed to be an arbitration agreement as it would require a fresh arbitration agreement to be executed between the parties prior to reference of dispute to arbitration.
Case Title: Mr. Birendra Bhagat vs. Arch Infra Properties Private Limited
Case Number: CO 4354 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that a clause laying down the settlement of the dispute by an expert cannot be said to be an arbitration clause. The bench held that an arbitral tribunal arrives at its decision on the evidence and submissions of the parties and must apply the law.
It held that an expert, unless it is agreed otherwise, makes his own enquiries applies his own expertise and decides how to resolve a problem or a dispute or difference. It held such clauses do not reflect the intention of the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of an independent arbitrator.
Case Title: M/S. B.B.M. Enterprises Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Case Number: AP/535/2022
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that it is completely beyond the domain of the Chief Justice and/or his designate, sitting in jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate even prima facie on the merits of an arguable issue involved in the matter, which would fall categorically within the domain of adjudication by the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Shalibhadra Cottrade Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
Case Number: Execution Case No. 193 2019
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even a unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, without any further allegation of bias under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, renders the Arbitrator ineligible. The bench held that in addition to the grounds specifically mentioned in Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule unilateral appointment of Arbitrator by one of the parties itself has also been brought under the purview of diqualification by ineligibility.
Case Title: M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd Vs Bridge and Roof Co India Ltd
Case Number: AP-COM No. 77 of 2024 and AP No. 407 of 2022
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has struck part of the arbitration clause as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The clause prevented the subcontractor from participating in arbitration proceedings despite having to bear the expenses for its claims. Further, it allowed the Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) to unilaterally decide whether a dispute could be referred to arbitration, thus depriving the subcontractor of an independent right to raise disputes.
2063 Crore Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court Directs West Bengal Government, WBIDC To Pay Amount
Case Title: Government of West Bengal & Anr. Versus Essex Development Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.
Case Number: A.P. (COM) 28 of 2023 with IA No. G.A. (COM) 1 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Krishna Rao has rejected the petition made under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the West Bengal Government and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation claiming fraud in making of the arbitral award. The bench noted that the arbitral tribunal arrived upon the findings after considering the materials placed before it and the submissions made by the respective parties.
Case Title: K2V2 Hospitality Llp Vs Limton Electro Optics Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
Case Number: AP/472/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held allowed composite reference of two companies to arbitration noting that the two arbitration agreement refer to the self-same demised property. Moreover, it noted that both the agreements were entered into by the same proposed lessee with two co-owners of the self-same property. The bench held that: “if two different references were to be made, there would be ample scope of conflict of decision pertaining to the self-same subject matter between the co-owners of the self-same property.”
Case Title: Future Market Networks Ltd. Vs Laxmi Pat Surana & Anr
Case Number: AP-COM/135/2024 (Old Case No. AP/698/2016)
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta has held that the Supreme Court's observations regarding the interpretation of "three months" in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as 90 days in various cases were not the ratio decidendi but obiter dicta. The bench held that the period of limitation must be computed based on calendar months, therefore, the period of limitation in Section 34(3) would be three months excluding the date of receipt of the arbitral award.
Case Title: The Incoda Vs The General Manager, Metro Railway And Anr.
Case Number: AP/611/2022
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the invocation of arbitration after the period defined in the arbitration clause doesn't frustrate the intention of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration.
The bench held that the outer limit stipulated in the arbitration clause for invocation of arbitration if failed by the claimant, does not constitute a waiver or a deliberate relinquishment of the claim by the claimant.
Arbitral Award In Violation Of Contractual Bar Is Patently Illegal: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Union Of India Vs M/S J K Enterprise
Case Number: AP/105/2021 IA NO: GA/1/2021, GA/2/2021
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an arbitral award in violation of a bar contained in the contract is beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The bench held that such an award categorically vitiated under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as by patent illegality as envisaged in Sub-section (2-A) of Section 34.
Single Judge Of Commercial Division Has Jurisdiction Over Original Applications In International Commercial Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Uphealth Holdings Inc Vs Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd And Ors and Connected Matters
Case Number: AP-COM/490/2024 IA NO: GA-COM/1/2024, GA-COM /8/2024 and Connected Matters
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that original applications related to International Commercial Arbitration are to be entertained by the Single Judge of the Commercial Division.
The High Court held that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 defines the Commercial Division and the Commercial Appellate Division distinctly. The Commercial Division, comprised of a Single Judge as per Section 4(1), handles original applications and appeals arising from International Commercial Arbitration. In contrast, the Commercial Appellate Division, as defined in Section 5(1), consists of one or more Division Benches and deals with appeals arising from decisions made by the Commercial Division.
LLP And Its Individual Partners Can't Raise Same Issue By Separate Appeals U/s 37 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Gaurav Churiwal vs Concrete Developers LLP and Ors.
Case No.: EC/283/2023
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Battacharyya held that an LLP and its partners cannot file separate appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by citing the principle of 'separate legal entity'. It was held that the principle of res judicata would apply to prevent the individual partners from raising the same issue under Section 37, if the previous appeal filed in the name of the LLP was dismissed.
'Rohan Builders' Not Binding Precedent, Court Empowered To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Even If Section 29-A Petition Filed After Termination: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs M.D. Creations And Ors.
Case Number: AP/37/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court is empowered the court is empowered to extend an arbitrator's mandate even if a petition under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is filed after the termination of the mandate. Justice Bhattacharyya clarified that the absence of negative expressions in Section 29-A, which are present in other statutes to enforce strict timelines, indicates legislative intent to allow judicial discretion in extending mandates.
Dismissal Of First Execution Application On Default Ground Does Not Bar Fresh Petition: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Jaymony Debnath And Ors.
Case Number: EC/8/2022
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held mere dismissal of the first execution application on the ground of default does not prevent the award-holder/decree-holder from filing a fresh execution petition.
The High Court held that the provisions of Rules 105 and 106 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not preclude the award-holder/decree-holder from filing a fresh execution case on the same cause of action after a dismissal for default. Unlike Order 9, there is no specific bar in Order 21 regarding execution cases. The bench noted that even Rule 4 of Order 9 allows for a fresh suit on the same cause of action if the previous suit was dismissed for default without the parties' presence.
Arbitrator's Reliance On Unverified Evidence Violates Fundamental Policy Of India: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs M/S. Sarada Rani Enterprises
Case Number: A.P. No. 392 of 2012
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that evidence which does not qualify as pleadings supported by due verification or affidavit cannot be equated with proof of a claim. It held that the arbitrator's reliance on such evidence was contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
The bench further held that the arbitrator was not in a situation where an exact figure cannot be determined, and which would require a reasonable guesswork by the tribunal.
Arbitrator's Award For Compensation For Excess Work And Business Loss Without Sufficient Evidence Is Perverse, Contrary To Fundamental Policy: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The State Of West Bengal Vs Bijan Behari Chowdhury
Case Number: AP/224/2009
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the arbitrator's decision to award compensation to the claimant for excess work and business loss, without sufficient evidence to support these claims, is perverse and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
No Independent Dispute Redressal Institution Recognised By Government In Kolkata, Parties Should Approach Court Under Section 11 For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Bhubaneshwari Seafood Private Limited And Anr. Vs Ugro Capital Limited
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2024 In APOT/296/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that SAMA, an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform, is not an independent Dispute Redressal Institution duly recognized by the Government of India in Kolkata. Therefore, the bench held that party should approach the court for the appointment of an arbitrator in view of disagreement.
Commercial Division Of High Court Can Hear Applications And Appeals Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 Filed On Original Side: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: M/S. Siemens Healthcare Private Limited Vs Sun Hospital And Ors.
Case Number: IA NO. GA/1/2024 and connected matter
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even if an application or appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to a commercial dispute is filed on the Original Side of the High Court, the same can be heard and disposed by the Commercial Division of the High Court.
Grounds For Challenging Arbitral Awards Narrower Under 1940 Act Compared To 1996 Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: State of West Bengal Vs Sambhu Nath Ghosh and another
Case Number: A.P. No. 654 of 2011
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the grounds for challenging an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act of 1940 are more limited compared to those under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.
The High Court considered the grounds enumerated under Section 34 of the 1996 Act which allow for a challenge if a party was incapacitated, if the arbitration agreement was invalid, if the applicant was not given proper notice of the Arbitrator's appointment, if the award dealt with matters beyond the arbitration agreement, or if the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal or the procedure was not in accordance with the agreement.
Government Entities Must Also Be Viewed Equally In Delay Condonation Applications Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs Civcon Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: APOT/75/2024 IA NO: GA-COM/1/2024, GA-COM/2/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that a government entity should also be seen from an egalitarian perspective while considering application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that while government agencies are not granted undue favor as litigants, there should also be no undue bias against them.
Section 34 Challenge Unwarranted If Arbitrator's Judgment Is Well-Reasoned And Based On Evidence: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation Vs BLA Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: AP-COM No. 231 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if an Arbitrator's judgment is well-reasoned and backed by substantial evidence, there are no grounds to challenge it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Sajarul Rahaman And Anr vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Anr and Connected Matters
Case Number: AP-COM/304/2024 and connected matters
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the principal application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award, falls under Entry No. 2(c) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. This entry is the residuary provision that prescribes a court fee of Rs. 120 for original applications before the High Court, where no other specific provision in Schedule II applies.
Applicants Seeking Pandemic Relaxation For Limitation Under Section 34 Petition Cannot Simultaneously Claim IBC Moratorium Protection: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Marg Limited Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Connected Matters
Case Number: AP-COM/398/2024 and connected matters
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC.
The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic initially prevented it from filing the application on time.
No Prior Request Under Section 21 Needed For Section 11 Arbitration Applications: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Kakali Khasnobis Vs Mrs Reeta Paul And Anr.
Case Number: AP-COM/701/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21.
The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is distinct from a situation under Section 11(5), where prior notice is necessary only for the appointment of an arbitrator, not for the initiation of the proceeding itself.
Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Justified If Applicant's Rights Are Not Protected From Third Parties: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Case Number: AP-COM/608/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous.
Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ranajit Guha Roy and Anr. vs Sankar Kumar Halder
Case Number: AP/861/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that allegations of a party's signature on an arbitration agreement being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation are matters that can be decided by the arbitrator and can't be resolved by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench further observed that the arbitral tribunal, similar to a civil court, has the authority to appoint experts when complex issues, such as those involving fraud or misrepresentation, require expert opinion.
The Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Re-interpret Contracts While Examining Patent Illegality : Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd vs SRMB Srijan Ltd
Case Number: EC/80/2023 [GA/2/2023]; AP-COM/281/2024 [Old No: AP/833/2022]; IA NO: GA/2/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence under the guise of patent illegality, as per the proviso to Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It remarked that the Court cannot be sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's decision and cannot re-interpret the contract differently from the Tribunal without evidence of patent illegality.
Case Title: Baid Power Services Private Limited vs The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited
Case Number: EC/5/2024, AP/757/2023, AP/758/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the time spent in a writ petition on the same cause of action can be excluded from the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitration Clause In Original Lease Deed Incorporated Into Deed Of Assignment When Deeds Are Interconnected And Consistent: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Tata Communications Limited Vs Rudrapriya Constructions LLP and Anr.
Case Number: AP/77/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment. The bench held that interrelationship was not merely superficial but indicative of a deliberate and mutual intent between the parties to incorporate certain terms from the initial lease deed into the new agreement.
Disputes Exceeding Rent Control Act Threshold Are Arbitrable If Lease Agreement Includes Arbitration Clause: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Tapan Kumar Samaddar Vs Sagar Jagdish Daryani And Anr.
Case Number: AP/163/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that when the total monthly payable amount surpasses the threshold for invoking the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the dispute becomes subject to arbitration if the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause.
Composite Reference Can't Be Made Of Disparate Causes Of Action: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Secretary Ganaudyog Bazar Unnayan and Service Co-operative Society Limited vs Iris Health Services Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/716/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that composite reference to an Arbitral Tribunal cannot be made for disparate causes of action in different agreements with different parties as it contravenes the principles of privity, confidentiality, and party autonomy.
Case Title: Gita Refractories Pvt Ltd Vs Tuaman Engineering Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/707/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that Section 18 of the MSME Act does not create any substantive rights or liabilities but simply offers an alternative method for resolving disputes outside of court proceedings.
The bench held that if a party involved in a dispute chooses to pursue arbitration independently under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, the MSME Act does not restrict the claimant from doing so.
Compliance With Pre-Arbitration Formalities Not Mandatory; Can Be Waived By Consensus: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Jayashree Electromech Private Limited v. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited
Case Number: AP-COM No. 751 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that compliance of the pre-arbitration stages can be waived by consensus. The court observed that forcing the petitioner back to the rigmarole of pre-arbitration formalities would be an unnecessary and futile exercise.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Rs. 780 Crore Arbitration Award In Favour Of Reliance Infrastructure, Refuses Pre Award Interest
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation vs. Reliance Infrastructure Limited
Case Numbers: APO 203 of 2023 with AP 40 of 2020 & APO 204 of 2023 with AP 40 of 2020
The Calcutta High Court division bench, comprising Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, has upheld the arbitral award amounting to Rs 780 crore in favour of Reliance Infrastructure Limited, with the exception of relief on pre-award interest and reduction in the rate of interest on bank guarantee. The court observed that the grant of pre-award interest was patently illegal, thereby, setting aside the interest awarded for the period prior to the award date.
90-Day Timeline In Section 18(5) Of MSME Act Is Directory : Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Porel Dass Water & Effluent Control Private Limited vs. The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited and Ors.
Case Number: AP-COM No. 789 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the 90-day timeline for completion of the arbitral proceeding under Section 18(5) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) is directory, not mandatory, and does not terminate or affect the validity of mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council as Arbitrator. It further held that the Court does not have jurisdiction to substitute the Council or its nominee by another Arbitrator under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, as the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Facilitation Council and overrides Section 29A(6), Section 14(1) and Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Arbitral Tribunal Acted With Patent Illegality, Against Indian Law In Awarding Reimbursement Of Service Tax Along With Interest: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: AB Enterprises Vs Union of India
Court: High Court, Calcutta
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that award passed by Arbitral Tribunal was tainted with patent illegality and contravened the fundamental policy of Indian law. The award was challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (act). The court set aside the award in which South Eastern Railway (railway) was directed to reimburse the respondent towards service tax and interest.
Composite Reference May Be Made When Two Contracts Are So Intertwined That Separate Arbitral Proceedings Would Prejudice Parties: Calcutta HC
Case Title: SMT SONIA DHIR AND ANR. VS PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIMITED
Citation : AP/179/2024
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya affirmed that when two or more contracts are so intertwined with each other so as to prejudice the parties should separate arbitrations be held, a composite reference of both the contracts can be made to the Arbitrator.
Award In Which Vital Evidence Are Not Considered Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality U/S 34: Calcutta HC
Case Title: MINTECH GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED – CEMENTDIVISION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya affirmed that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that if there is a perversity in the award insofar as the non-consideration of vital evidence is concerned, the same tantamounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian Law as well as gives rise to a patent illegality, which is a sufficient ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Calcutta High Court Injuncts State Govt, WBIDC From Disposing Of Property In KMC Area Over Essex Arbitral Award Case
Case Title: ESSEX DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS MAURITIUS LIMITED VS GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER
Case Reference: EC-COM/447/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has injuncted the West Bengal Government and WBIDC from disposing of subject matter of the Award in the execution petition filed by the award-holder in Essex case.
Order Passed U/S 11 Cannot Be Recalled If Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists To Justify Reference Of Parties To Arbitration: Calcutta HC
Case Title: BANKAT GARODIA VS ADITYO PODDAR
Case Number: IA NO.GA-COM/2/2024 In AP-COM/17/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an order passed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act on the basis of an arbitration clause cannot be recalled merely on the ground that reply given to a notice under section 21 was suppressed.
Remedy Under A&C Act Is In Addition To Remedies Under Special Statutes, But Once Elected Other Remedies Are Barred For Same Dispute: Calcutta HC
Case Title: Smt. Rita Banerjee & Anr. Versus S.E. Builders & Realtors Limited
Case Number: IA No. GA 3 of 2022 in CS No. 57 of 2022
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Krishna Rao has observed that the remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in addition to the remedies available under other special statutes and the availability of alternative remedies is not a bar to the entertaining of a petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But once elected, then the other remedy will not lie in respect of the same dispute.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Enforcement Of Foreign Award Cannot Be Refused U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Unless It Is Against Public Policy: Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Bulk Trading S.A. Having versus Mahendra Sponge And Power Ltd.
Case Reference: ARBAP No. 9 of 2023 and ARBAP No. 10 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari has held that enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused under section 48 of the Arbitration Act unless it is shown that the award is against the public policy of India. The court further observed that even during Covid-19 pandemic, the Banking Sector continued to provide essential services and in the Notification, said Sector is under exception, so the award(s) could not be said to be contrary to public policy of India.
Enforcement Of Foreign Award Cannot Be Refused U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Unless It Is Against Public Policy: Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Bulk Trading S.A. Having versus Mahendra Sponge And Power Ltd.
Case Reference: ARBAP No. 9 of 2023 and ARBAP No. 10 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari has held that enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused under section 48 of the Arbitration Act unless it is shown that the award is against the public policy of India. The court further observed that even during Covid-19 pandemic, the Banking Sector continued to provide essential services and in the Notification, said Sector is under exception, so the award(s) could not be said to be contrary to public policy of India.
Two Arbitration Petitions For Same Relief Cannot Be Filed: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Himalaya Complex Vyapari Kalyan Sangh Supela Bhilai Society Through Its Joint Secretary versus Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited Through Its Chariman
Case Number: ARBR No. 11 of 2024
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Chief Justice Mr. Ramesh Sinha has held that two arbitration petitions for the same relief cannot be filed.
Court At Designated Seat Would Have Exclusive Jurisdiction To Entertain Applications Arising Out Of Arbitration: Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: M/s. Radhakishan Ventures Private Limited versus M/s Caratlane Trading Private Limited and Ors.
Case Number: Arbitration Appeal No.30 of 2024
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justices Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Radhakishan Agrawal has held that court having supervisory jurisdiction over seat designated in the Arbitration Agreement would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain all applications arising out of the arbitration proceedings.
Findings Of Arbitrator U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Scrutinised As If Court Is Sitting In Appeal: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: M/s S.K. Minerals versus South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Case Number:ARBA No. 35 of 2022
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justices Smt. Rajani Dubey and Shri Bibhu Datta Guru has held that findings of the Arbitrator cannot be scrutinised under section 34 of the Arbitration Act as if the court is sitting in appeal.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Opuskart Enterprises & Ors vs Kaushal Kishore Tyagi
Case Title: M/s Exotic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Medors Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title: The Braithwaite Burn and Jessop Construction Co Ltd vs Northern Railway
Case Title: Information TV Private Limited vs Jitendra Dahyabhai Patel
Case Title: National Research Development Corporation & Anr vs Chromous Biotech Pvt Ltd.
Case Title: Air India Limited vs All India Aircraft Engineers Association & Anr.
Case Title: Allied-Dynamic Joint Venture vs Ircon International Ltd, Delhi
Case Title: Nitin Kwatra vs Stadhawk Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Verma vs Planning And Infrastructural Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title: JKG Infratech Private Limited vs Larsen and Toubro Limited
Case Title: Vedanta Limited vs Shreeji Shipping.
Case Title: Surya Alloy Industries Ltd Vs Union Of India And Anr.
Case Title: M/S S.K Agencies vs M/S DFM Foods
Delhi High Court Halts PCA Arbitration Over Arbitrator Appointment Breach
Case Title: Techfab International Pvt Ltd v. MIDIMA Holdings Limited, CS(COMM) 50 of 2024
Case Title: Mrs. Vinnu Goel v. Deputy Commissioner of Stamp Registration & Ors, WP(C) 9291 of 2023
Case Title: Vingro Developments Pvt Ltd v. Nitya Shree Developers Pvt Ltd, Arb.P. 667/2023
A Party Cannot Challenge An Arbitral Award After Receiving Amount Payable Under It: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s K.S. Jain Builders v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation, OMP(COMM) 456 of 2022
Case Title: Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd v. Gunocen Inc, FAO(COMM) 31 of 2021
Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC, OMP(COMM) 311 of 2021.
Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC, OMP(COMM) 311 of 2021.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited, FAO(OS)(COMM) 81 of 2020
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited, FAO(OS)(COMM) 81 of 2020
Section 34 Petition Is Non-Est If Filed Without The Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Panacea Biotec Limited, FAO(OS)(COMM) 81 of 2020
Case Title: M/S Axalta Coating Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Madhuban Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title: Swashbuckler Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs Avdesh Mittal & Anr.
Case Title: Gorkha Security Services vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi.
Case Title: Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. vs Samtel Display Systems Ltd.
Case Title: Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Uniper Global Commodities.
Case Title: Devender Kumar Kashyap vs Chander Muni.
Case Title: Umaxe Projects Private Limited vs Air Force Naval Housing Board
Case Title: Aakash Educational Services Ltd Vs M/S Lotus Education & Ors.
Case Title: Mr. Gajendra Mishra v. Pokhrama Foundation, ARB.P. 969/2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 74
Case Title: Jatinder Kaur & Ors v. Late Jagjit Singh & Ors, ARB.P. 1167 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 72
Case Title: Vivek Aggarwal v. Hemant Aggarwal, OMP(MISC)(COMM) 29 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 71
Case Title: Allied-Dynamic JV v. Ircon International Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 62
Case Title: Simentech India Pvt Ltd v. BHEL, OMP(COMM) 348 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 63
Case Title: The Executive Engineer & Ors Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd & Anr.
Section 29A Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Commenced Before 2015: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Govt. Of NCT of Delhi vs M/s R.S Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd
Case Title: M/s NHPC Ltd v. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, OMP(ENF.)(COMM) 184 of 2023
Case Title: Aakash Educational Services Ltd Vs M/S Lotus Education & Ors.
Case Title: The Executive Engineer & Ors Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd & Anr.
Section 29A Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Commenced Before 2015: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Govt. Of NCT of Delhi vs M/s R.S Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd
Case Title: M/s NHPC Ltd v. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, OMP(ENF.)(COMM) 184 of 2023
Case Title: M/s Fortuna Skill Management Pvt Ltd v. M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 348
Case Title: Alka Sachdeva vs Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 335
Case Title: Ved Contracts Pvt Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 336
One Party Cannot Appoint 2/3rd Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Apex Buldsys Limited v. IRCON International Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 341
Case Title: Avdhesh Mittal Vs Deepak Vig.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 342
Case Title: Srf Limited Vs Jonson Rubber Industries Limited.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 343
Case Title: Maj. Pankaj Rai vs M/s Niit Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 349
Case Title: CG Engineering Company Vs Ircon Infrastructure And Services Limited (Ircon Isl) And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 345
Case Title: Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353
Case Title: M/s Upper India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359
Case Title: Techno Compact Builders v. Railtel Corporation of India Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360
Case Title: Rani Construction v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 361
Case Title: Dharamvir & Company v. DDA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 362
Delhi High Court Directs Arbitrator To Refund 6 Lakh Of 14.5 Lakh Fee Paid By Parties
Case Title: Smt. Manju Gupta & Ors. Vs Shri Vilas Gupta & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 383
Case Title: Department Of Transport Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs Green City Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 376
Case Title: M/S Delhi Msw Solutions Limited vs Amity Software Systems Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 382
Case Title: Fusionnet Web Services v. Yash Fiber Network
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 381
Case Title: Oriel Financial Solutions v. Bestech Advisors Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 380
Case Title: Nbcc India Ltd Vs Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 379
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 378
Case Title: Psa Protech And Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Food Corporation Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 377
Case Title: Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 259
Case Title: Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 260
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 261
Case Title: Union Of India Vs NCC Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 262
Case Title: M/S. Breakthrough Concepts Vs M/S. Atrix Group Of Restaurants & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 264
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 265
Case Title: Tata Motor Limited vs Delhi Transport Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 273
Section 17 provides the arbitral tribunal power to give interim measures to the parties.
Case Title: M/s Sabsons Agencies Private Limited Vs M/s Harihar Polymers & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 899/2023 & I.As. 25472-25473/2023, 4893/2024.
Case Title: Godavari Projects (J.V) Vs Union of India.
Case Number: ARB.P. 1342/2022.
Case Title: Chabbras Associates vs M/s Hscc (India) Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 293
Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC, OMP(COMM) 311 of 2021.
Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC, OMP(COMM) 311 of 2021.
Case Title: Mr. Dushyant Chikara v. Fauzia Sultana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 396
Case Title: BBNL v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401
Case Title: Hfcl Limited Vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 390
Case Title: Sharad Gupta & Ors Vs Shri Vinayak Infraland Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 398
Case Title: NHAI v. M/s IRB Ahmedabad Vadodra Super Express Tollways, OMP(COMM) 455 of 2022
Final Determination On Question Of Arbitrability Should Be Made By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Prince Chadha v. Amardeep Singh, ARB.P. 1361 of 2022
Case Title: M/s Advance Stimul v. GAIL India, ARB.P. 13 of 2014
Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd v. Shivaa Trading
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 471
Case Title: M/s Advance Stimul v. GAIL India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 457
Case Title: Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigal Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 453
Case Title: Paisalo Digital Limited v. Sat Priya Mehmia Memorial Educational Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 475
Case Title: Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 482
Case Title: Samrata Constructions Company v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 481
Case Title: Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 479
Case Title: Pankaj Singh V. Bashir Ahmed Haroon
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 477
Section 29A Allows Extension Requests Even After Arbitrator's Mandate Expires: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited
Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 120/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not preclude the consideration of applications for extension of the arbitrator's mandate filed after the expiration of the mandate.
General Explanation Of Intra-departmental Analysis And Discussions Doesn't Constitute Credible Explanation For Delay In Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (Tcil) Vs Ngbps Ltd
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 171/2019
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a general explanation of intra-departmental analysis and discussions doesn't constitute as valid and credible explanation for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Ms. Sarika Chaturvedi Vs Agarwal Auto Traders & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 48/2024 & I.A. 29792/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on a party for unnecessarily challenging and questioning the mandate of the arbitrator. The bench held that the party's intent was to create a stale mate. It held that repeated interventions of the court in arbitral proceedings are to be avoided and parties cannot force the arbitrators to recuse/withdraw.
Party Can't Challenge Procedural Order Passed By Arbitrator Under Section 9: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Jagdish Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indag Rubber Limited
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 165/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that a party is not permitted to challenge a procedural order passed by an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that:
“…it is observed that by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 the Petitioner is merely attempting to avoid the appellate provision under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 which clearly stipulates as to which orders are appealable.”
Case Title: M/S Kld Creation Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
Case Number: ARB.P. 321/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the role of the court is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that once the court confirms that the arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from delving into other issues, which are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: M/S Divyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs M/S M2k Entertainment Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 162/2020 & I.A. 14331/2012, I.A. 10655/2022
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal.
Case Title: M/S Space 4 Business Solution Pvt Ltd Vs The Divisional Commissioner Principal Secretary And Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 360/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right. The bench held that: “whether to grant or refuse the interest on the principle amount, is the absolute discretion of the learned Arbitrator.”
Case Title: M/S Kings Chariot Vs Mr. Tarun Wadhwa
Case Number: ARB.P. 421/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that where no seat of arbitration is specified in the arbitration agreement, the jurisdiction of the court shall be determined in accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C. The bench held that: “….no confusion and law is explicit that for the purpose of Arbitration, even if no part of cause of action has arisen in a place, then too, the parties can agree on a seat of jurisdiction, which would then become the place for all litigation under the Arbitration Act. However, if the parties do not specify any seat/place of Arbitration, them the jurisdiction of the Court shall be determined in a accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C.”
Case Title: Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs M/S Dsc Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 331/2020 & I.A. 10114/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the question of determination of whether indeed, there was a delay on the part of the Contractor is not an excepted matter and it is only the quantum of damages which is non-arbitrable. The bench held that:
“….the question of determination of delay, is not an excepted matter and has to be necessarily arbitrated and is an arbitrable dispute.”
Scope Of Inquiry In Section 9 Petition Is Limited, Interpretation Of Contract Would Be Within Domain Of Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Vijay Maheshwari Vs Splendor Buildwell Private Limited And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 720
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that under a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of inquiry is very limited to grant interim relief.
The bench held that issues of fact or law are not to be determined finally at the Section 9 stage as they fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal. It held that the interpretation of the terms of the Contract/MoU and also the determination of its scope would also be within the domain of the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: M/S Talbros Sealing Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Slach Hydratecs Equipments Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 715
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the arbitration clause is not invalidated merely on the ground that the number of arbitrators, as per the arbitration clause, was an even number and therefore, was in contravention of Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 states that the parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number.
Mere Sending of Notice Under Section 21 Not Enough, Receipt of Notice Essential: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indian Spinal Injuries Centre Vs M/S Galaxy India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 714
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that merely sending notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not sufficient. It held that receipt of the notice is the prerequisite for the commencement of arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Pitambar Solvex Pvt Ltd And Anr. Vs Manju Sharma And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 713
Case Number: ARB.P. 212/2024, I.A. 9821/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that mere initiation of the arbitration proceedings does not bar the corporate debtor from pursuing his other remedies including those under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title: Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 711
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that non-disclosure of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in another matter cannot be termed as a case of egregious fraud, which would disentitle a party from pursuing its petition under Section 9.
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for interim measures by the court. It empowers a party to arbitration proceedings to seek interim relief from a judicial authority before, during, or after the arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Capri Global Capital Limited Vs Ms Kiran
Case Number: ARB.P. 870/2023 and I.A. 16066/2023
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held for the purposes of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, where the appointment of an arbitrator is sought, the question of whether the claims are time-barred should ideally be left for determination by the arbitral tribunal.
Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor
Case Number: ARB.P. 882/2022
The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pertains to the extension of the time period for arbitral tribunals to make their awards. This section gives courts the power to extend the mandate of the arbitral tribunal beyond the originally specified period.
Case Title: Growth Techno Projects Limited Vs Ishwar Industries Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 764
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held the time period starting from the filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act till the amendment to the Arbitration Act in 2015, stands excluded from the counting of the limitation period for the enforcement of the arbitral award.
Arbitration Clauses Require Explicit Reference In Subsequent Agreements: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Deepa Chawla Vs Raheja Developers Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 772
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that for an arbitration clause to be enforceable in subsequent agreements, it must be explicitly referenced within those agreements. The bench noted that the subsequent agreement in the dispute contained a specific exclusion of the arbitration clause.
Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement Invalidated By Subsequent Verbal Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mukesh Khurana Vs Rahul Chaudhary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 773
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the arbitration clause in a lease agreement ceases to exist if the lease terminates and a new verbal tenancy agreement is established.
Disputes Related To Lock-In Periods In Employment Contracts Are Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Lily Packers Private Limited Vs Vaishnavi Vijay Umak and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 777
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court held that the three-year lock-in period did not constitute an unreasonable curtailment of the employees' right to employment and did not violate any fundamental rights. It noted that such clauses are typically negotiated voluntarily and entered into with mutual consent.
Case Title: GJ (JV) Comprising of M/S Godara Construction Company M/S Jandu Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 778
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that panel comprising of serving or retired officers of Railways not only restricted the party's choice but also compelled it to choose its nominee from amongst four names suggested by the Railways.
The bench noted that such a panel is not in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV).
Case Title: Murari Lal Agarwal Vs Kmc Construction Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 780
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in a 'two-contract case', a specific reference to the arbitration clause in an earlier contract is necessary for its incorporation into the main contract between the parties.
A 'two-contract case' refers to a situation where there are two separate contracts involved and the parties seek to incorporate terms, including an arbitration clause, from one contract into another.
Case Title: M/S Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt Ltd Vs M/S Sel Manufacturing Co Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 781
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that when parties engage in actions based on invoices containing arbitration clauses, demonstrating mutual acceptance, an arbitration agreement may be inferred directly from those invoices.
Case Title: Nafees Ahmed Vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 782
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that coercion, or its absence in a dispute is a complex question, purely of fact, which has necessarily to be examined by the arbitral tribunal. The bench held that with the introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the jurisdiction of the referral court is now circumscribed.
Case Title: Reliance Communications Limited Vs Unique Identification Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 784
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has dismissed a petition filed by Reliance Communications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the arbitrator correctly divided the total number of call seconds by 60 to determine the number of call minutes. The bench noted that the company is not entitled to a whole minute if the call lasted only part of a minute.
Case Title: Mukesh Udeshi vs Jindal Steel Power Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 788
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that only parties to an arbitration agreement can challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was further held that 3rd-party beneficiaries of domain names in India, who are impacted by the arbitral award, lack the standing to challenge the award.
Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner Of Police Vs Score Information Technologies Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 789
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that the arbitral tribunal may exercise its power to award compensation for breach if a Contract has become incapable of specific performance. Further, the bench held that the interpretation of a contract is a matter for an arbitrator to determine. It held that even if such interpretation gives rise to an erroneous application of the law, the courts will generally not interfere unless the error is palpably perverse or illegal and goes to the root of the matter.
Disobedience Of Interim Measures Due To Insolvency Proceedings Is Not Contempt: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mr.Rajan Chadha & Anr Vs Mr.Sanjay Arora & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 790
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has held that disobedience of interim measures granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to insolvency proceedings does not warrant contempt charges.
The bench held that if the disobedience results from circumstances beyond the contemnor's control, such as financial constraints or ongoing disputes that impact compliance, contempt charges are not justified.
Case Title: Welspun Enterprises Ltd Vs Kasthuri Infra Projects Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 79
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is in place, ordinarily a court should refrain from dealing with the matter even for the purposes of passing interlocutory orders unless the order is demonstrably one which cannot await the application of mind by the Arbitral Tribunal. The bench held that: “. If party is able to convince the Court that by the time the application is taken up by the Arbitral Tribunal, the prejudice that may result would be irreparable, it may be justified for the Court to take up the matter even when the Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of the disputes.”
Case Title: Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Deepak And Co
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 799
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that findings made by an arbitrator which are consistent with the documentary evidence and admissions made during cross-examination are reasonable and not perverse.
The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Associate Builders v. DDA where the Supreme Court held that the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act do not encompass the merits of the award. Instead, they are limited to issues such as public policy and procedural fairness. The Supreme Court highlighted that the principle of judicial approach requires decisions to be fair, reasonable, and objective. Arbitrary or whimsical decisions are not fair or reasonable.
Case Title: Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprise Limited Vs Domus Greens Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 803
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that a third party, whose rights for a registered charge are affected by an arbitral award, can challenge such award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 11(6) Petition Not Maintainable Without Prior Section 21 Notice In Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd Vs Manav Sethi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 805
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that a Section 11(6) petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable unless it is preceded in the first instance by a Section 21 notice.
The bench noted that the notice serves the crucial purpose of informing the opposing party about the claims asserted, allowing for potential acceptance, clarification of claims, assertion of defenses, or identification of counter-claims.
Intention To Arbitrate Must Be Assessed Holistically In Transactions Involving Interlinked Agreements, Even If Some Agreements Lack Explicit Arbitration Clauses: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Nishesh Ranjan and Anr. vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 807
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that in a composite transaction involving multiple interlinked agreements, courts should assess the intention to arbitrate holistically and refer disputes to arbitration even if some agreements lack explicit arbitration clauses.
Decree Holder Not Entitled To Interest For Period Between Deposit of amount and its Release : Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 808
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the Decree Holder is not entitled to interest on the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor for the period between the date of deposit and the date of release permitted by the court.
The bench held that the entitlement to interest does not extend to the period between the deposit and the withdrawal application if the deposit was unconditional and available for withdrawal without any impediment.
'Subsequent Shareholders' Do Not Qualify As 'Association Or Body of Individuals' Under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Ktc India Pvt. Ltd Vs Randhir Brar & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 809
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that “subsequent shareholders,” each holding a specific number of shares and having the right to exit the company under defined conditions while undertaking individual rights and obligations, do not qualify as an "association or body of individuals" under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the High Court classified the arbitration as “international commercial arbitration” because one of the shareholders was a national and habitual resident of a country outside India.
Arbitrator Must Determine Validity Of Coercion Claims In Settlement Agreements, Termination Of Arbitration Improper: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Gae Projects (P) Ltd. Vs Ge T&D India Ltd. (Formerly Alstom T&D India Ltd.)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 810
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that claims of coercion or economic duress in a settlement agreement require examination by an arbitrator to determine their validity. The bench held that the Arbitrator's summary dismissal of the claimant's plea and the termination of arbitration proceedings without a trial were improper.
Act of God Does Not Justify Retention Of Performance Bank Guarantee Without Suffering Legal Injury: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd Vs Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 818
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal has held that a force majeure event specifically an Act of God beyond the control of the concerned party doesn't require retention of performance bank guarantee. The bench held that a party cannot retain monies recovered through encashment of Performance Bank Guarantee on account of liquidated damages without having averred that it had suffered a legal injury on account of the delay in commissioning, which was only a couple of hours.
Disputed Contract, Can't Be Challenged U/s 34 Of Arbitration Act Unless finding are Unreasonable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Noble Chartering Inc. vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 819
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that the interpretation of a disputed contract falls within the arbitral tribunal's domain and is not subject to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless the interpretation is unreasonable.
Courts Can't Undertake Independent Assessment Of Award In Appeal U/s 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s BPL Limited vs M/s Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 820
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma reiterated that while entertaining an arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the role of a court is limited to ascertaining whether the exercise of power under Section 34 has exceeded the scope of the provision. In such cases, the High Court held that courts cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award.
Misunderstanding Of Basic Contractual Framework Vitiates Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title:Trans Engineers India Private Limited Vs Otsuka Chemicals (India) Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 830
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that an award with misreading/misunderstanding of the basic contractual framework vitiates it at its root and makes it vulnerable to challenge under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Non-Signatories Can Be Included In Arbitration Beyond Group Company Ties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rbcl Piletech Infra Vs Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held the inclusion of a non-signatory in arbitral proceedings is not solely dependent on the non-signatory being part of the same group of companies as the signatory.
The bench further clarified that a non-signatory can be included in arbitration if there is a contractual relationship that makes the non-signatory partially or wholly responsible for obligations towards the claimants.
Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Can't Be Used To Seek Re-Litigation: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Krishan Kumar & Anr Vs Shakuntla Agency Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 854
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a “second bite at the arbitral cherry”. The bench further held that under Section 34 the court cannot enter into a re-appreciation of facts.
Case Title: Sharad Bhansali & Anr. Vs Mukesh Aggarwal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 855
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C.Hari Shankar has held that Article 23A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act applicable in Delhi covers Agreement to Sell to which Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) applies.
Section 53A of the TPA is designed to protect a transferee who has part performed a contract for the transfer of immovable property. To avail of this protection, the transferee must demonstrate that the contract was in writing, signed by or on behalf of the transferor, that possession of the property was taken by the transferee, that some act was done in furtherance of the contract, and that the transferee has either performed or is willing to perform their part of the contract.
Arbitrators Must Separately Calculate Fees For Claims And Counterclaims In Ad Hoc Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited Vs Union Of India Through Executive Engineer Cpwd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 858
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has set aside computration of fee by an arbitration on the basis decision in Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd which was later set aside in ONGC Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723.
The bench held that in ad hoc arbitration, the arbitrator must calculate fees separately for claims and counterclaims, with the ceiling limit in the Fourth Schedule applied separately to each.
Case Title: M/S Plus91 Security Solutions Vs Nec Corporation India Private Limited (Erstwhile Nec Technologies Private Limited)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 869
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that an Arbitral Tribunal's decision to award damages for loss of profit is vitiated by patent illegality if it contradicts the express terms of the agreement between the parties.
The bench held that:
“It is essential to maintain the bargain entered into between the parties. The parties agreed that they would not be liable for (i) any indirect, special, or consequential loss or damage; (ii) any loss or damages due to loss of goodwill; and, (iii) loss of revenue or profit arising from or in connection with the MOU. f the MOU is accepted as a binding agreement, this is clearly a part of the bargain struck by the parties. Disregarding the said stipulation would in effect amount to rewriting the bargain between the parties.”
Case Title:Maruti Traders vs Itron India Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 89/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C Hari Shankar has held that commerce is devoid of equity. The bench held that commercial transactions are driven by a harsh reality, and the principle of universal brotherhood does not extend to commercial dealings. In these transactions, there is no obligation on the arbitrator for fairness, kindness, or equity, and no court can mandate such qualities.
The bench noted that while there might be a limited expectation of fairness in transactions involving the Government, the contract's terms remain paramount. In commercial disputes, relief cannot be granted based on principles of equity and fairness; it must be sought within the framework of the Contract Act or relevant statutes.
Case Title: Hindustan Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maa Sheetla Ventures Limited
Case Number: W.P.(C) 10561/2024, CM APPL. 43391-43392/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has held that the scope of judicial interference under Article 226 is limited when challenging an Arbitral Tribunal's order concerning the conduct of arbitration proceedings.
The bench held that a writ petition cannot be entertained against every interlocutory order related to case management. Such orders fall within the Arbitral Tribunal's discretion and authority which includes decisions on matters like summoning witnesses and producing documents.
Non-Response Can't Be Presumed As Consent For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S S. K. BUILDERS v. M/S CLS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 898
The Delhi High Court bench of J. C.Hari Shankar has held that consent requires consensus ad idem and there must be positive consent present from the petitioner side with respect to the appointment of an arbitrator. If such consent is absent, the appointment becomes unilateral and ex facie illegal.
Case Title: Index Hospitality Limited Vs Contitel Hotels And Resorts Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 909
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharmab has held that breaches of undertakings given before a Court, or an Arbitral Tribunal should not be pursued under the Contempt of Courts Act. Instead, the High Court held that proper course of action is to seek enforcement of the arbitral award.
Court Has Power To Grant Anti-Enforcement Injunction Against Proceedings In Foreign Court Which Threaten Arbitral Process Initiated In India: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Honasa Consumer Limited Vs Rsm General Trading Llc
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 922
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that when proceedings in a foreign court, or a decree issued by a foreign court, threaten the arbitral process that may be initiated in India, the court has the authority under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to restrain the party from continuing with the foreign proceedings or enforcing the potentially prejudicial decree.
Section 29A Time Limit Does Not Apply To Arbitral Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Chinar Steel Industries Vs Ircon International Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 924
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that time limit under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable to arbitral proceedings “commenced” as per Section 21 prior to 2015 amendment.
The bench held the “commencement” of proceedings is the relevant yardstick for determining applicability of the Section 29A after 2015 amendment and is different from the concept of “entering upon the reference” referred to in Section 29A before the 2015 amendment.
Court's Role Under Section 11(5) Or 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Limited To Verifying Arbitration Agreement And Timely Filing: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Raj Kumari Taneja Vs Rajinder Kumar & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 929
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held when a Court exercises jurisdiction under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it has to only ensure the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and to confirm that the petition under these sections has been filed within three years of the service of a Section 21 notice.
Excise Duty Disputes Non-Arbitrable Only When Involving Sovereign Functions Including Determination Of Tax Rate Or Liability: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs Paramount Communications Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 930
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a dispute regarding excise duty is only non-arbitrable when it involves a sovereign function, such as determining tax liability or the rate at which duty must be paid to revenue authorities. The bench clarified that this issue is separate from the dispute which concerns whether the claimant is obligated to pay the respondent for the goods supplied including excise duty at the rate specified in the invoices.
Allegations Of Fraud And Time-Barred Claims Must Be Addressed By Arbitral Tribunal, Not Court: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Dr. Rahul Bhayana Vs Dr. Rohit Bhayana & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 939
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that issues such as allegations of fraud and claims that the applicant's claims are time-barred must be addressed by the arbitral tribunal rather than the court.
Discovery And Inspection Orders By Arbitral Tribunal Are Not Interim Awards If They Do Not Resolve Disputed Issues: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies Ag Vs Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 944
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that an order by arbitral tribunal addressing applications related to the discovery and inspection of documents does not constitute an interim award if it does not resolve a matter at issue between the parties.
Court Acquires Jurisdiction Under Section 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Immediately On Default Of Pre-Arbitral Or Arbitral Procedure: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Bksons Infrastructure Pvt. Lt Vs Managing Director, National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 942
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that court acquires jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 immediately on the default, of either party, in adhering to the pre-arbitral or arbitral procedure envisaged in the contract.
Arbitral Tribunal Is Master of Evidence, Delhi High Court Upholds Award Against Railways
Case Title: Union Of India Vs M/S Parishudh Machines Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 943
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that when an arbitrator delivers an Arbitral Award, the assessment of the quality and quantity of evidence presented to her must be respected, and any reasonable conclusion drawn by the arbitrator based on the facts should be upheld. The bench held that that the Arbitral Tribunal is the master of evidence and a findings of fact arrived at by an arbitrator is on an appreciation of the evidence on record are not to be scrutinised as if the Court was sitting in appeal (referred to State of Jharkhand v. HSS Integrated Sdn)
Case Title: Kunal Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 946
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that it is reasonable for an arbitrator to deny pre-reference and pendente lite interest when the applicant is partially responsible for delays in completing the project.
The bench held that interpreting a contract and determining claims based on that interpretation fall within the arbitral tribunal's authority.
Arbitration Clause Invalid If Contractor Cannot Select Arbitrator From Railway's Panel: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd VS Rail Land Development Authority
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 948
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an arbitration clause is invalid if it does not allow the contractor to select an arbitrator from a panel provided by the Railway. The High Court noted that there was a significant distinction between the clause and the arbitration clause previously considered by the Supreme Court in Central Organization for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV).
Legality Of Arbitrator's Appointment Can't Be Challenged In Petitions For Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Apex Buildsys Ltd. Vs Vadera Interiors And Exteriors and connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 956
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that objections related to the legality of an arbitrator's appointment cannot be raised in a petition seeking an extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
No Denial Of Opportunity When Arbitrator Allowed Claimants To Submit Additional Affidavit Revealed In Respondent's Response-Affidavit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DD Auto Pvt Ltd Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 957
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that there is no denial of opportunity when the arbitrator permitted the claimants to submit an additional affidavit by way of examination-in-chief which came to light for the first time in the response-affidavit filed by the Respondent.
Correspondence Stating Non-Arbitrability Of Dispute Due To Negotiable Instruments Act Proceedings Implies Recognition Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Dhanlaxmi Sales Corporation Vs Boston Scientific India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 958
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that correspondence from a party stating that ongoing proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 barred initiation of arbitration implicitly acknowledged the existence of the arbitration clause.
Administrative Lethargy Of Government Machinery Not Valid Ground For Delay Condonation In Arbitration Appeals: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union Of India Vs Rishabh Constructions Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 959
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that nature of administrative lethargy of the Government machinery is not a satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay in submitting an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitrator's Discussion On Claims And Costs Exceeds Jurisdiction If Not As Per Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ram Chander Aggarwal Vs Ram Kishan Aggarwal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 960
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that if an arbitrator concludes that she was not appointed according to the arbitration clause, then any discussion on the merits of the claims and the award of costs against the Respondents exceeds the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
Arbitral Tribunal Is Final Decision-Maker; Court Interference Only For Perverse Or Implausible Awards: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Delhi Skills Mission Society Vs Samuel Foundation Charitable India Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 964
The Delhi High Court divison bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that Arbitral Tribunal serves as the ultimate decision-maker on all matters. The bench held that interference by the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only warranted if the Tribunal's decision is deemed perverse or implausible.
Order In Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Based On Settlement Is Enforceable As Decree : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Anand Gupta & Anr. Vs M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr. And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 986
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree in accordance with Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Twelve-Month Period For Arbitral Award Begins From Completion Of Pleadings, Not Statement Of Defense: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 988
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when read with Section 29A(4), implies that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates if the tribunal does not issue the award within twelve months of completing the pleadings under Section 23(4).
The bench held that the twelve-month period is to be calculated from the completion of pleadings, not from the date of filing the Statement of Defense (SOD).
Absence Of Monetary Claim In Section 21 Notice Doesn't Negate Existence Of Dispute: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Deepti Gambhir Proprietor Of S P Distributors And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 993
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that due to the broad interpretation of the term "dispute," the court cannot definitively conclude that no dispute exists between the parties, even in the absence of a monetary claim by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitrator Can't Assume Arbitral Seat Without Clear Agreement From Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union Of India Vs Arsh Constructions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 994
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that parties in arbitration can agree to an arbitral seat at a neutral location, different from where the contract was executed, the work was carried out, or the arbitration proceedings were conducted. However, such a decision must first reflect mutual agreement and, secondly, must be documented, either explicitly in writing or recorded by the Arbitrator or the Court in an order.
Non-Compliance With Share Purchase Agreement; Arbitrability Of Dispute Must Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal, Not By Court: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Thriving Farm Builders Pvt Ltd And Anr Vs Sushil Chaudhary And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 995
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that argument claiming the dispute is non-arbitrable due to non-compliance with the Share Purchase Agreement cannot be addressed by the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that such aspects need to be addressed by the arbitral tribunal.
The Arbitral Tribunal May Implead A Non-Signatory To The Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd v. Hero Solar Energy Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 996
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) has held in the affirmative whether the arbitral tribunal may implead a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in the proceedings. Following the ratio in Cox and Kings Ltd v. Sap India Pvt Ltd (Cox and Kings II), it observed that whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement is for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide and not the Section 11 Court.
Mere Arbitration Clause In Invoices Insufficient, Express Or Implicit Acceptance Of Terms Of Invoices Necessary: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mr. Mohammad Eshrar Ahmed Vs M/S Tyshaz Buildmart India Private Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 105/2023, I.A. 22122/2023
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that simply including an arbitration clause in invoices does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement. The High Court held that since the applicant neither expressly nor implicitly accepted the terms of the invoices, it could not be deemed to be bound by any arbitration agreement.
Party Ignores Section 21 Notice; Should Seek Court Intervention, Arbitrator Can't Unilaterally Summon Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Meenakshi Agrawal Vs M/S Rototech
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 998
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that if a party seeking arbitration faces a situation where the opposing party does not respond to a Section 21 notice or refuses to agree to arbitration, the only recourse is to approach the Court under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, depending on the circumstances. The bench held that party cannot unilaterally grant jurisdiction to the arbitrator, even if the arbitrator is already named. Similarly, it held that the arbitrator cannot independently summon the opposing party to attend the arbitration proceedings.
All Arbitration Proceedings Must Be Filed In Court With Jurisdiction Over The Arbitral Seat: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bcc Developers And Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 999
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once the arbitral seat is established, all proceedings, including the initial ones, must be filed only in the court that has jurisdiction over the arbitral seat. The bench held that no other Court is authorized to handle any matters related to the arbitration.
Contempt Proceedings Inappropriate For Resolving Complex Disputed Factual Issues: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Morgan Ventures Limited Vs Nepc India Limited And Other & Ors. And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the contempt proceedings are not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed factual issues such as conducting a detailed accounting analysis to determine the fairness or justification of accounting practices.
Referral Court Under Section 11 Can't Decide The Arbitrability of Non-Notified Claim: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding a Section 11 application, has held that a referral court under Section 11 cannot examine the arbitrability of non-notified claims. After the SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning judgment, the arbitral tribunal will decide on the arbitrability of disputes.
Arbitrator Justified In Treating Loan Admission In Correspondence As Admitted Claim Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shutham Electric Ltd. Vs Vaibhav Raheja & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
The Delhi High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that when a party makes a clear admission of owing a loan in its contemporaneous correspondence, the arbitrator is justified in treating it as an admitted claim under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Case Title: Prime Interglobe Private Limited v. Super Milk Products Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 34 petition, has held that any party can benefit from the second part of Section 34(3) when calculating the limitation period. The statute's language does not specify who should request under Section 33. Therefore, the benefit of calculating the limitation period from the date of disposal of the Section 33 application is available to both parties.
Delhi High Court Stays Arbitral Awards Due To Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator
Case Title: M/s PGL Estatecon Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Jyoti Enterprises
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
The Delhi High Court bench presided by Justice C. Hari Shankar has stayed the execution of two arbitral awards, holding that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent, without court intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act, rendered the arbitration proceedings invalid ab initio.
Case Title: Grand Motors Sale And Services Pvt Ltd v. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that when the seat of the arbitration is contractually fixed, only those Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the seat would have the curial jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Following the dictum in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd, the court held that the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition
Case Title: Poonam Mittal v. Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, has held that Sub-section (6) pertaining to substitute the arbitrator is there to further the purpose of Section 29A.
Section 29A(6) confers power on a court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators while extending the arbitral tribunal's mandate. Right To File Section 14 Petition Absolute And Untrammeled By Any Other Considerations: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, has held that Sub-section (6) pertaining to substitute the arbitrator is there to further the purpose of Section 29A.
Case Title: Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal, has held that the right of a party to file a Section 14 petition seeking to terminate the mandate of the tribunal is not curtailed because the party had previously filed a Section 16 application before the tribunal and lost.
Appointment Of Arbitrator Not Unilateral If Consent Of Non-Signatory Not Taken: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1088
The Delhi High Court has held that the consent of a non-signatory to arbitral proceedings is not required for the appointment of the arbitrator.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 14 petition challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction, has held that the appointment of an arbitrator without the consent of a non-signatory would not be an unilateral appointment. The requirement to reach a consensus for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 21 applies to the parties to the arbitration agreement and not a non-signatory who is included in the arbitral proceedings.
Application Of MSMED Act And Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Over Contractual Disputes Must Be Determined By Arbitral Tribunal,Not By Court In Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
The Delhi High Court has clarified the legal position of the intersection between the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash a notice requesting the parties to file their Statement of Claims (SoC) and subsequent communications, has clarified the legal position concerning the period of limitation under Section 18(5), the registration of an MSME supplier following the issuance of purchase order and the impact on MSME Claims.
Three-Arbitrator Tribunal To Become Sole Arbitrator Tribunal On Failure Of Party To Appoint Its Arbitrator- Delhi High Court To Examine
Case Title: Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Mirador Commercial Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
The Delhi High Court has resolved to examine an arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), if the same is affected by the line of judgments following Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. United Telecoms Ltd and Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while dismissing the petitions filed under Section 14(2) read with Section 14(1) seeking termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate, held that the arbitration clause in the GCC and the one under consideration in the line of judgments following Perkins Eastman being significantly different requires consideration.
Case Title: PayU Payments Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
The Delhi High Court, following the law laid down in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning, has held that the aspects of non-arbitrability of a claim are for the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate, and courts at Section 11 stage cannot examine the same.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, has held that post SBI General Insurance, the scope of examination of a referral court has been restricted to examining the prima facie existence of arbitration agreement. The court under Section 11 jurisdiction cannot hold that the respondent's repudiation of the claim has made the dispute non-arbitrable, as this would amount to the court pronouncing on the arbitrability of the dispute.
While Adjudicating On Challenges Against Arbitral Tribunals' Orders U/S 17 Of A&C Act, Court Not Strictly Bound By O.38 & O.39 CPC: Delhi HC
Case Title: LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs MINTELLECTUALS LLP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in orders passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not bound by the principles underlying Order XXXVIII and XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code.
The court observed that interference with such orders is limited to cases where the orders are "perverse or manifestly arbitrary." The court found no fault with the tribunal's reduction of the security amount and requirement of robust security and held that such security was an interim measure and not a final determination of liability.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due To Failure Of Arbitrator To Disclose Conflict, Non-Supply Of Documents
Case Title: FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1116
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that the duty of arbitrators of disclosure of any conflicts under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and continuous throughout the proceedings. The court noted that disclosure must be in writing and a verbal disclosure does not suffice. The court also held that there was a violation of section 18 of the Act as the party has not had an opportunity to consider and respond to submissions on evidence furnished by the opposing party.
Forum Shopping Is Abuse Of Legal Process And Cannot Be Condoned: Delhi High Court
Case title: MICHAEL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has held that forum shopping, i.e., such conduct, where the petitioner attempts to choose a forum favourable to them after having already approached the appropriate forum, is an abuse of legal process and cannot be condoned.
Delhi High Court Stays Decision Of Apex Council Which Altered Result Of 'Legends League' Cricket Match After Being Declared
Case Title: Mriksha Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1122
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta, while hearing a Section 9 petition under the A&C Act, has granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the communication of Event Technical Committee (ETC) and the Apex Council which allowed the result of a cricket match to be altered after the result has been announced.
Article 227 Cannot Be Invoked When Interrogatories & Discoveries Allowed By Tribunal Are Not In Nature Of Fishing Inquiry: Delhi HC
Case Title: M/s Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited v. M/s Sharda Developers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1123
The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of review under Article 227 is extremely narrow; the same cannot be invoked when the interrogatories and discoveries allowed by the tribunal have a co-relation and nexus with the subject matter of the dispute.
The bench of Justice Manoj Jain, while hearing two claim petitions, held that where the seller offered alternate plots in similar projects upon the frustration of the agreement, it cannot refuse to divulge such information regarding the same plot. The interrogatories and discoveries allowed by the party do not fall into the category of fishing inquiry and are related to the subject matter of the dispute.
Principle Of Judicial Non-Interference Is Fundamental To Both Domestic & International Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1128
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that it is well settled that the principle of judicial non-interference in arbitral proceedings is fundamental to both domestic as well as international commercial arbitration and that the Arbitration Act is self contained code. In this case, a petition under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act) was filed seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Case Title: Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
The Delhi High Court division bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gadela, while hearing an appeal, has upheld the order passed by a single-judge bench wherein it was held that the question of whether an entity was an MSME at the relevant time was to determined by the tribunal under section 16 of A&C Act and not the writ court.
Delhi High Court Allows Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate Despite Post-Expiry Filing U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1134
Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 722/2024
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a petition filed under Section 29A of the Act is maintainable even if it is filed after the expiry of the arbitrator's mandate.
Further, the court observed that this question is still pending before the Supreme Court due to a conflict of decisions of different High Courts, the view taken by Delhi High Court has not been stayed.
Baseless Allegations Against Arbitrators Must Be Dealt With Strictly, Arbitral Tribunals Can Hold Party In Contempt: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Dalmia Family Office Trust & Anr. vs. Getamber Anand & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1137
The Delhi High Court division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma has held that Arbitral Tribunals have the same power as a Civil Court in dealing with contempt against itself as per sections 17(2) and 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that baseless allegations against Arbitrators must be dealt with strictly. It observed that the integrity of arbitration cannot be made fragile by giving room to unsubstantiated or speculative allegations against arbitrators.
Case Title: ICRI CORPORATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SHOOGLO NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY OMG NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1144
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the arbitral tribunal had correctly applied the IVth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in recalculating the fees separately for the claims and counterclaims.
Additionally, the court held that invoking Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature since no award had been made.
Case Title: M/S Sultan Chand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Kartik Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1148
The Delhi High Court bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that a Defendant (in a civil suit) has the right to withdraw an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and submit to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The court held that when the Defendant (herein, the Respondent) withdrew the application seeking a reference to arbitration, the Plaintiff (herein, the Appellant) had no legal right to oppose the withdrawal of the application and/or insist that the matter be referred to arbitration.
Interference Under Article 227 Is Permissible Only If Order Of Arbitrator Is Completely Perverse And Illegal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DR. RAJAN JAISWAL v. M/S SRL LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1149
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held that judicial interference under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in the arbitral matters should be limited and confined to exceptional cases. In the present case, a petition under article 227 was filed by the petitioner, Dr. Rajan Jaiswal in which the order passed by the Sole Arbitrator on September 24,2024 was challenged. The arbitrator dismissed the application to submit additional documents on the ground that no sufficient reasons were provided to show that why they were not produced earlier. The arbitrator also noted that the documents were in possession of the applicant still they were not submitted earlier.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1151
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if an order of dismissal of the SLP is a non-speaking order and no reasoning has been given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for the same, then review of the order challenged is permissible.
Standard Is Higher For Post-Award Section 9 Relief, Order To Deposit Amount Not Passed In Routine Manner: Delhi HC
Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. M/S IRB AHMEDABAD VADODARA SUPER EXPRESS TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1154
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Hari Shankar held that the standard required to be met by a post-award Section 9 relief is higher than that required by pre-award Section 9 reliefs. In this case, interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was sought to secure the awarded amount.
Stamp Act Not Enacted To Arm Litigant With “Weapon Of Technicality”: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Punita Bhardwaj vs. Rashmi Juneja
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has observed that “the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments and it has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to counter and oppose the case of its adversary.”
Pre-Arbitral Resolution Clauses Are Directory, Not Mandatory, Especially in Cases Requiring Urgent Adjudication: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JHAJHARIA NIRMAN LTD. v. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1158
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that any pre-condition in an arbitration agreement obliging one of the contracting parties to either exhaust the pre-arbitral amicable resolution avenues or to take recourse to Conciliation are directory and not mandatory.
Additionally, the court held that the disputes between the parties require urgent adjudication, it would be wholly untenable to compel the parties to go through the motions of conciliation/DAB proceedings before referring the disputes to arbitration.
Court Under S.9 Of Arbitration Act Can Grant Interim Measure To Protect Property From Being 'Wasted' While Hearing Appeal U/S 37: Delhi High Court
Case Title: - BCC DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD v. BHUPENDER SINGH & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1161
The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the court in the exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, is not obligated to consider the merits or otherwise of the facts as stated by the litigants.
Non-Signatories Bound By Arbitration Agreement If Their Actions Align With Those Of Signatories: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KKH FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JONAS HAGGARD & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1163
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if a non-signatory party actively participates in the performance of a contract, and its actions align with those of the other members of the group, it gives the impression that the non-signatory is a “veritable” party to the contract which contains the arbitration agreement. Based on this impression, the other party may reasonably assume that the non-signatory is indeed a veritable party to the contract and bind it to the arbitration agreement.
Arbitration Proceedings Before Improperly Constituted Arbitral Tribunal Are Non-Est: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1164
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held where the appointment procedure is invalid, any proceedings before an improperly constituted arbitral tribunal are non-est. Also, this would not prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the act.
Additionally, the court held that whether a particular claim is precluded from arbitration on account of being an excepted matter should be decided by a duly constituted arbitral tribunal.
Jurisdiction Under Articles 226/227 Of Constitution Cannot Be Invoked When Order Passed By Arbitral Tribunal Is Procedural: Delhi High Court
Case Title: LALIT MOHAN v. M/S. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO. FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. (NAFED)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1165
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the question of maintainability of a writ petition in relation to arbitration proceedings is well settled. The jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot be invoked where the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals are procedural in nature.
No Compensation Can Be Awarded As Consequence Of Breach In Absence Of Any Legal Injury: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. MS KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1167
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Mr. Prateek Jalan held that no compensation can be awarded as a consequence of breach of a contract, in the absence of any resulting legal injury. Although the extent of loss or damage is not required to be proven, the fact that loss or damage has been suffered must be established, even to claim liquidated damages or penalty.
HC Can Invoke Article 227 To Interfere With Commercial Court's Order If It Suffers From Erroneous Interpretation Of Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ms CP Rama Rao Sole Proprietor v. National Highways Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1170
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227, had observed that the interpretation of Section 42 of the A&C Act by the District Judge while returning the Section 34 petition to be filed before the High Court was completely erroneous. The Court exercised the supervisory jurisdiction while setting the impugned order, as the interpretation of Section 42 by the District Judge would have caused irreparable harm to the petitioner.
Case Title: Shamlaji Expressway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1173
The High Court of Delhi of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the scope of review of an interlocutory order is very narrow when the tribunal examines the factual scenario in detail before formulating an opinion in Section 17. The court cannot change the conclusion reached by the tribunal when the same is based on an intricate factual examination of the matter.
Limitation Is Mixed Question Of Fact And Law Required To Be Adjudicated U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HOME AND SOUL PRIVATE LIMITED V. T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1174
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the issue of limitation, raised as a jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 of Arbitration Act, is rarely a pure question of law. More often, it is a mixed question of law and fact. Whether a claim is barred by the law of limitation depends upon the facts that determine the cause of action and the point from which the limitation period is to be computed.
Tribunal Is Master Of Evidence, Findings Cannot Be Scrutinised U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act As If Court Sitting In Appeal: Delhi HC
Case Title: PEC LIMITED v. ADM ASIA PACIFIC TRADING PTE. LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1178
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justices Tara Vitasta Ganju And Vibhu Bakhru held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the master of evidence and a finding of fact arrived at by an arbitrator is on an appreciation of the evidence on record, and is not to be scrutinized under section 37 of Arbitration Act as if the Court was sitting in appeal.
Reduction Of Awarded Interest Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Impermissible: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S STAR SHARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD. V. PRAVEEN GUPTA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1179
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the arbitral tribunal has the discretion to grant pre-award interest and/or post-award interest, on either whole or part of the principal amount. In proceedings under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is impermissible to reduce interest awarded since the same amounts to modification of the Award.
Case Title: M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192
The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the role of the court under section 9 of the Arbitration Act is to preserve the subject matter of the Arbitration till the arbitral tribunal decides the claims on merits. Whether termination of the agreement was valid or not is not be decided by the court at section 9 stage. Primacy to agreement between the parties has to be given while deciding petition under 9 of Arbitration Act.
Not Every Legal Mistake Made by Arbitral Tribunal Is Patent Illegality, Scope Limited To Substantive Laws: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that patent illegality applies only to violations of substantive law of India, the Arbitration Act, or the rules applicable to the substance of the dispute. It does not apply to every legal mistake made by the arbitral tribunal. Additionally, the court held that the scope of a challenge under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated therein.
Enforcement Court U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Can Refuse To Enforce Foreign Award But Cannot Set It Aside: Delhi High Court
Case Title: INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191
The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that the power to set aside a foreign award lies only with the courts at the seat of the arbitration, which exercise primary/supervisory jurisdiction over the matter. Even if grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act can be made out, the Court being the enforcement court and having only secondary jurisdiction over the foreign award cannot set aside the award but may only “refuse” its enforcement.
Agreement Between Parties Must Be Given Primacy When Deciding Petition U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192
The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the role of the court under section 9 of the Arbitration Act is to preserve the subject matter of the Arbitration till the arbitral tribunal decides the claims on merits. Whether termination of the agreement was valid or not is not be decided by the court at section 9 stage. Primacy to agreement between the parties has to be given while deciding petition under 9 of Arbitration Act.
Ban Imposed U/S 69 Of Partnership Act Has No Application To Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HARI OM SHARMA v. SAUMAN KUMAR CHATTERJEE & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1193
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the bar of Section 69 of the Partnership Act does not come within the expression “other proceedings” as used in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act. Therefore, the ban imposed under Section 69 has no application to the arbitral proceedings.
Challenge To Award U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Without Award Itself Being Filed Would Not Be A Valid Filing: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VASISHTA MANTENA NH04 JV & ORS. V. BLACKLEAD INFRATECH PVT LTD.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 419/2023
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is for challenging the Award. It cannot be said that a challenge to the Award without the award itself being filed would be a valid filing. Without the Award, the challenge would become meaningless because unless the Award is perused by the Court, it cannot test or adjudicate on the correctness of the Award.
Case Title: HR BUILDERS THROUGH GPA HOLDER V. DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1223
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing an award from the date of the conclusion of the pleadings can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the award was passed after more than 2 years from the conclusion of the arguments.
Award Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If View Taken By Arbitrator Is A Plausible View: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RUDRA BUILDWELL PVT LTD. v. REALWORTH INDIA PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1224
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that conduct of the parties has to be seen before granting equitable relief for specific performance of the contract. If the conduct of the parties does not demonstrate that the party claiming relief is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract then the relief under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted. The court in this case refused to set aside the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the Arbitrator had taken a plausible view based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
De-Jure Ineligibility To Act As Arbitrator U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act Can Be Waived Only By Express Agreement In Writing: Delhi High Court
Case Title:N.S. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1226
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that de jure ineligibility to act as an arbitrator can only be waived, after dispute having arisen, by the parties by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The court further observed that this waiver is different from section 4 of the Act which can be waived even by conduct.
Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Requires Proof Of Actual Loss: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Adani Enterprises Limited vs. Shri Somnath Fabrics Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1227
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has upheld the Arbitral Award wherein the Tribunal had ordered a refund of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) as the petitioner had failed to prove any actual loss. The court, in light of Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, observed that forfeiture of the EMD requires proof of actual loss.
Arbitral Award Without Rationale For Damages Is Ex Facie Contrary To Settled Law, Can Be Set Aside: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Travel2Agent.com & Ors. vs. M/s Spice Jet Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1230
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that any award of damages, on the touch stone of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, must be predicated on actual loss suffered. The court set aside the award for not disclosing the rationale for damages and, on this count, held that the award was ex facie contrary to settled law and in manifest disregard of the material/evidence on record.
Case Title: GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD versus SAW PIPES LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1231
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta affirmed that the explicit terms of a contract are always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties. The multi-clause contract inter se the parties has, thus, to be understood and interpreted in a manner that any view, on a particular clause of the contract, should not do violence to another part of the contract. In this case, the court while hearing appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act upheld the impugned judgment passed by the court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Scope Of Examination U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Confined To Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SURESH KUMAR KAKKAR & ANR versus M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1234
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that when a non-signatory person or entity is arrayed as a party at Section 8 or Section 11 stage of the Arbitration Act, the referral court should prima facie determine the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement, as the case may be, and complex issue like whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement must be left for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide.
Case Title: JKR Techno Engineers Pvt Ltd v. JMD Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1237
The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that the petitioner's claim cannot be treated as dead one simply because they spent time on bona fide court proceedings before a court without jurisdiction.
Case Title: BALAJI STEEL TRADE versus FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma affirmed that Section 45 of the Arbitration Act casts a statutory mandate on Courts to refer parties to an arbitration agreement to arbitration. The only limited exception carved in Section 45 is if the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the arbitration agreement is (a) null and void; or (b) in-operative; or (c) incapable of being performed. Unless such grounds are made out, the Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration.
Court U/S 45 Of Arbitration Act Must Refer Parties To Arbitration Unless Agreement Is Void Or Inoperative: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BALAJI STEEL TRADE versus FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma affirmed that Section 45 of the Arbitration Act casts a statutory mandate on Courts to refer parties to an arbitration agreement to arbitration. The only limited exception carved in Section 45 is if the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the arbitration agreement is (a) null and void; or (b) in-operative; or (c) incapable of being performed. Unless such grounds are made out, the Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration.
Objections On Capacity Of Party To Initiate Arbitration Must Be Addressed Before Tribunal, Not While Appointing Arbitrator: Delhi HC
Case Title: Kanwar Singh Yadav vs. Delhi Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1247
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the objections as regards the capacity of the party to initiate arbitration is an aspect which is necessarily required to be gone into the arbitration proceedings, however, the same could not preclude the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal. The court held that a party may raise appropriate jurisdictional/preliminary objections before the Arbitral Tribunal as regards the maintainability of the arbitration and/or the arbitrability of the claim.
Plausible View Taken By Arbitrator Based On Facts Of Case Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Netaji Subhash Institute Of Technology Versus M/S Surya Engineers & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1263
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that once an arbitrator has taken a plausible view based on the facts of the case, such a view cannot be interfered with under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Merit Based Review Of Arbitral Award Is Impermissible Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Educational Society versus M/s Intec Capital Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1269
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta affirmed that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction. It is well-settled that that a merit based review of an arbitral award involving reappraisal of factual findings is impermissible. The mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract does not entitle courts to reverse the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: M/s BPL Limited v. M/s Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) NO. 46/2019
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma, while hearing a review petition of an appeal filed by the appellant u/s 37(1)(b) of the A&C Act read with Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act observed that the exuberant interest rate charged in the commercial world depends upon the transparency of the terms and conditions of the contract entered into. The bench further observed that the arbitral tribunal imposing a high interest rate cannot be said to violate the fundamental policy of Indian laws.
Court's Supervisory Role Over Arbitral Proceedings Would Be Determined As Per CPC If No Neutral Location Is Specified: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Srinivasa Construction Corporation Pvt Ltd Versus Irrigation Works Circle, Through Superintendent Engineer District, Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1273
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that if there is a neutral location specified in the contract data, that location would be the place of arbitration and the court having supervisory jurisdiction over the place would have jurisdiction. If no such location is specified, the provisions of the CPC from sections 16 to 20 would be attracted for determining the supervisory jurisdiction of the court.
Arbitration Clause From Another Contract Can Be Incorporated Into Contract Only By Specific Reference: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Unthinkable Solutions LLP Versus Ejohri Jewels Hub Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1274
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad affirmed that the arbitration clause from another contract can be incorporated into the contract when there is a clear intention that arbitration clause contained in another contract would also be incorporated in the contract by which the disputes would be resolved.
Award In Which Damages Are Awarded In Absence Of Proven Loss Or Injury Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 On Grounds Of Patent Illegality: Delhi HC
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus M/s Fiberfill Engineers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1281
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta has held that awarding damages by Arbitrator in the absence of proven injury or loss qualifies to be a patent illegality under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34.
Well Reasoned Award Cannot Be Interfered With Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aktivortho Private Limited Versus Dilbagh Singh Sachdeva And Other
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1282
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju affirmed that Courts should not customarily interfere with Arbitral Awards that are well reasoned, and contain a plausible view.Judges, by nature, may incline towards using a corrective lens, however, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, this corrective lens is inappropriate especially under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It was held that the error in interpreting a Contract is considered an error within jurisdiction of the tribunal. Therefore, judicial interference should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Procedural Orders Cannot Be Considered As Interim Award Or Challenged U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: COSLIGHT INFRA COMPANY PVT. LTD v. CONCEPT ENGINEERS & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1283
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that a procedural order given by an Arbitral Tribunal, such as rejecting an application seeking impleadment of a party, does not qualify as an interim award. So, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Liberty To File Fresh Application Not Fresh Cause Of Action, Limitation U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Extended: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NATIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY v. M S INTERMARC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1292
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee have held that mere liberty to file a fresh application before the competent Court does not amount to a fresh cause of action occurring in the appellant's favour. The relevant date(s) of the Award always remained unchanged, and therefore even after availing the benefit of the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appellant's application was barred by limitation.
Case Title: Sumana Verma vs. Arti Kapur & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1295
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has held that the striking off of the defence of the Petitioner for non-payment of arbitral fees is a drastic measure that exceeds the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The Court observed that under Section 38(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Tribunal should allow the proceedings to continue with the Claimant bearing the costs initially, subject to recovery in the final award. The court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, stayed the arbitration proceedings pending before the Sole Arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Arbitral Award, Only To Circumvent Statutory Requirement Of S.19 Of MSMED Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Omaxe Ltd v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1297
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a writ petition challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSFEC), has held that invoking the writ jurisdiction to challenge an arbitral award would circumvent the statutory requirement of pre-deposit u/s 19 of the MSMED Act, and would amount to defeating the legislative intent.
Arbitrators Cannot Pass Binding And Enforceable Orders Unilaterally Determining Their Fees: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SPML INFRA LIMITED versus POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1302
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has affirmed that Arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their own fees. A unilateral determination of fees violates the principles of party autonomy and the doctrine of the prohibition of in rem suam decisions, ie., the arbitrators cannot be a judge of their own private claim against the parties regarding their remuneration.
Case Title: Union Of India versus Besco Limited (Wagon Division)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1303
The Delhi High Court bench of Ms. Justice Rekha Palli and Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee has affirmed that just because the appellant is government that doesn't mean that a special treatment will be given while condoning the delay in filing the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Limited Scope Of Examination U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act, Award Vitiated By Patent Illegality: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. SH. SATYA PAL GUPTA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1304
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded the claim for loss of profit for the period the Contract was prolonged without any evidence or material to support the claim. Therefore, the impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality.
Court Which Appointed Arbitrator Has Jurisdiction To Substitute Arbitrator Or Extend Time U/S 29 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: OVINGTON FINANCE PVT. LTD. versus BINDIYA NAGAR
Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 695/2024
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the term "Court" under Section 29A must mean only to be the Court which has appointed the arbitrator and therefore the Court to extend the time or substitute the arbitrator would only be the Court which has appointed the arbitrator and no other Court.
Additionally, the court held that Section 9 of the act deals with interim measures passed by a Court and therefore the term "Court" would have to take the meaning of the Court under Section 2(1)(e).
Delhi HC Allows Invocation Of Arbitration Clause After 10 Yrs, Says That Scope Of S.11(6) Plea Is Limited To Ascertaining Existence Of Agreement
Case Title: SHRI KR ANAND v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Case Number: ARB.P. 1776/2024
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the scope of the present proceedings is confined to ascertaining the existence of the arbitration agreement. Also, the objections raised by the respondent regarding the limitation/jurisdiction would be required to be considered by a duly constituted arbitral tribunal.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Claim Of Rs.15 Lakh Awarded By Arbitral Tribunal Due To Lack Of Evidence
Case Title: MOHD AMIN DECEASED THROUGH LRS versus MOHD IQBAL DECEASED THROUGH LRS
Case Number: FAO (OS)(COMM) 81/2024
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that after persuading the Supreme Court to refer the disputes to arbitration, it is not open for the appellant to now question the validity of the reference.
Additionally, the court held that the respondent had not placed any evidence on record to establish the cost of such construction. Therefore, the amount awarded against Claim no.2 was without any evidence and thus may be set aside.
Delhi High Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Gas Supply Dispute, Invalidates Previous Arbitration Clause In View Of CORE Judgment
Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED vs. M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS
Case Number: ARB.P. 355/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that the arbitration agreement which contemplated the appointment of the sole Arbitrator to be made out of a panel of three persons chosen by the petitioner was no longer valid in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company.
Consequently, the court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties upon determination of the existence of the arbitration agreement.
S.2(1)(f) Is Non-Derogable, Applicability Cannot Be Excluded Even By Mutual Consent Of Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Suresh Shah versus Tata Consultancy Services Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. 5/2017, I.A. 9676/2019
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration Act which defined the International Commercial Arbitration is a non derogable provision and its applicability cannot be excluded even by mutual consent of the parties.
Case Title: ADO INDIA PVT. LTD. versus ATS HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED
Case Number: I.A. 1612/2024 in ARB. P. 1432/2022
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has held that any error in an order passed by the court in the Arbitration Proceedings can be corrected under sections 152 and 153 of the CPC provided prejudice is not caused to the other party.
If Remedy For Cause Of Action Falls Within Scope Of Arbitration Agreement, Counter Party Cannot Be Compelled To Defend It In A Suit: Delhi HC
Case Title: M/S GRANDSLAM DEVELOPERS PVT LTD v. AKSHAY GANDHI PROPRIETOR OF PRAXIS DESIGN SOLUTIONS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1351
The Delhi High Court Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the scope of examination in an application under Section 8 of the Act is limited to prima facie examining the validity and existence of the arbitration agreement. Once it is accepted that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the court is necessarily required to allow the application under Section 8 of the Act and refer the parties to arbitration.
Case Title: M/S SATYADHARA COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD v. M/S INDIASIGN PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1353
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any plausible reasons for the delay caused in filing the present appeal. Also, there was not any exceptional circumstance(s) which precluded the appellant from filing the present appeal during the prescribed statutory period. The same is of vital importance as it is not merely the number of days of delay, which would be material for considering the application seeking condonation of delay, but it is the sufficiency of reasons for the delay which would be relevant to determine whether the delay should be condoned.
Case Title: SUBHASH CHANDER BAJAJ (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS v. INDERJIT BAJAJ (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1369
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee has held that the Single Judge has, without interfering with the factual findings arrived at by the learned Arbitrator, correctly applied the settled legal position to the MFS, by holding that the same being a record of prior oral partition of the properties between all the sons of late Mr. Amarnath Bajaj, was only a Memorandum regarding the existing settlement between the parties. Moreover, the court held that the Memorandum of Family Settlement (“MFS”) did not require registration.
Case Title: LAS GROUND FORCE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOLDAIR HANDLING SA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1374
The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that if the respondent is denied participating in any tender process and ultimately, in the arbitration proceedings and then in the award, it is held that the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, then irreparable loss will be caused to the respondent. The court held that restraining the respondent from participating in the bid will actually thwart competition.
Termination Of Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Results In Waste Of Time, Resources And Money, Court Allowed Petition U/S 29A (4) And (5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S RCC INFRAVENTURES LTD & ORS v. M/S DMI FINANCE PVT LTD & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1375
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal have invested a lot of time, effort and energy in the arbitral proceedings. The essence of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a litigant-centric process to expedite the disposal of cases and reduce the cost of litigation.
Also, the said delay of four and a half months in filing the present petition is not an inordinate delay to direct that the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator should not be extended, or a substitute arbitrator should be appointed.
Award Is Time-Barred U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Due To Petitioner's Failure To Confirm Award Receipt On Affidavit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. INDURE PVT. LTD v. ANEJA CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1380
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has affirmed that in absence of any positive affirmation on affidavit from the petitioner as to when the award was received, the Court cannot accept the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that as soon as the award was received it was filed by the petitioner.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: M.S. Oil India Limited vs M.S. Badri Rai And Company
Case Title: M/s Atw (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Anr
Case Title: M/S Trideep Changmai Vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council And Anr
Case Number: Case No. : WP(C)/5029/2021
No Bar On Invoking Arbitration Despite Alternative Remedy Under RERA Act: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Pallab Ghosh And Anr Vs Simplex Infrastructures Limited And Anr
Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked In View Of Arbitration Clause Except For Specific Circumstances: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Anupam Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
Case Title: RAMPAT LAL VERMA v. RAHUL VERMA AND ORS.
Case Reference: GAHC010187132024
The Gauhati High Court Bench of Justice Mr. Robin Phukan held that it is also well settled that reference of case to arbitral tribunal under section 8 of Arbitration Act can be declined by the court only if the dispute is non-arbitrable.
Gujarat High Court Allegations Of Fraud, Misappropriation With No Public Implication Doesn't Make Dispute Non-Arbitrable: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/S Sai Polyplast Vs Vikas Raj Chhajer
Case Title: Poll Cont Associates vs Narmada Clean Tech Ltd.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 51
Case Title: Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Versus Keventer Agro Limited
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7782 of 2024
Gujrat High Court Sets Aside Order Of District Judge Which Interfered With Arbitration Award
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
Case Title- C2R Projects LLP v. Kinetix Solutions Private Limited & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
Case Title: Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University Versus Abhinav Knowledge Services Private Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee has held a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable against the order of rejection of the application under Section 16 challenging challenging the jurisdiction of an arbitrator on the plea of res judicata and bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
Party Cannot Invoke Arbitration After Voluntarily Submitting To Court's Jurisdiction During Proceedings: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Prabhudas Jesangbhai Patel Versus Vinodbhai Mohanbhai Togadiya
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 110
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J. C. Doshi has held that whether a party has waived their right to seek arbitration and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court depends on the party's conduct during the suit.
However, the bench held that the legal principle remains that an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be filed before the first statement on the substance of the dispute is submitted.
Gujarat High Court Flags Arbitrator Bias, Confirms Setting Aside Arbitral Award On Grounds Of Patent Illegality
Case Title: Sentinel Properties Private Limited vs. Legal Heir of Deceased Atul Dhirajlal Amin Viral Atulbhai Amin s/o Late Atulbhai Amin
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 135
The Gujarat High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, has held that agreements for the sale of agricultural land to non-agriculturists are invalid under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act unless necessary permissions from the Collector are obtained. The court observed that the agreement, executed through a Power of Attorney, was a contingent contract, conditional on securing this sanction. The bench noted that specific performance could still be decreed. However, if such permissions were not obtained, the contract would be rendered unenforceable. The court also addressed the apprehension of bias of the arbitrator, holding that the arbitrator's prior association with a key stakeholder in the claimant company raised 'justifiable doubts' regarding independence and impartiality.
Award In Which Serious Allegations Of Fraud Are Not Decided Must Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: SHAILESH ANILKUMAR AMIN & ANR. Versus GUJARAT METRO RAIL CORPORATION (GMRC) LTD.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 166
The Gujarat High Court Bench of Chief Justice SUNITA AGARWAL and Justice PRANAV TRIVEDI affirmed that if serious allegations of fraud are raised that the arbitration agreement was entered into by fraud and collusion and such allegations are not decided by the Arbitrator while passing an award, such an award is liable to set aside on the ground of patent illegality under section 34 of the Arbitration Act
Requirement Of Serving Notice On Other Party For Appointment Of Arbitrator Is Dispensed With In Statutory Arbitration: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/S KONNECTING INDIA & ORS. Versus THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO OP. BANK LTD. & ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 167
The Gujarat High Court Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the arbitration proceedings under consideration is not a commercial arbitration, but a statutory arbitration. The Arbitrator is appointed pursuant to the provisions of Section 84(5) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The appointment of the Arbitrator is made by the State Government on behalf of the Central Government. The argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants about the applicability of provisions of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act in a statutory arbitration, is absolutely meritless.
Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Agreement Does Not Automatically Bar Jurisdiction Of Civil Court: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: DEVSHIBHAI GOVINDBHAI LIMBANI & ORS. Versus DHAVALBHAI BHOGILAL VYAS & ORS.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 188
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi has held that mere existence of arbitration clause in the agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the civil court automatically.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Chander Prabha vs LAC & Anr.
Case Number: Arb. Case No. 303 of 2024.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja held that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute. It held that the Divisional Commissioner, acting as an arbitrator under National Highways Act, 1956, despite the completion of pleadings granted adjournments to the proceedings.
Case Title: Pawan Sahni & others vs Satish Sharma & others
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao held that there is a tendency of the parties to impugn the motives of Arbitrators without affording them the opportunity under Section 13(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that such baseless allegations and accusations could needlessly tarnish the reputation of Arbitrators especially of retired High Court Judges and undermine the arbitration process.
Case Title: Hari Ram and others. Vs National Highways Authority of India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 22
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that the landowner shouldn't suffer for the act of omission of the Arbitrator to make an award within a
period of 12 months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the Reference as per Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It held that the reason that as right to property is a Constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, therefore, the landowner cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the law.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs M/s Asphalt Carpet Constructions Co
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 20
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that in case the interpretation of the relevant clause of agreement as arrived at by the Arbitrator was possible and plausible, the same cannot be interfered with merely because another view could have been taken. The bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in UHL Power Company Ltd. versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18 and held that the jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is fairly narrow.
For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Section 34, Party Is Obligated To Reveal Bonafidies Coupled With Plausible Reasons: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: State of H.P. & another vs M/s Jagson International Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 21
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that for showing sufficient cause as required under the proviso to Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the party is obligated to reveal their bonafidies coupled with plausible reason in not filing the application within the prescribed time.
Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, deals with the time limit for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award.
Case Title: Kamla Devi vs Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority and another
Case Number: Arbitration Case No.573 of 2024
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Bipin Chander Negi onus is upon the arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to them within the time schedule prescribed in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench noted that criticized an arbitrator appointed by Central Government under the National Highways Act for his callous attitude. The court noted that the arbitrator took upon the task of deciding the arbitration proceedings knowing fully well that if the proceedings are not completed within the time schedule, then unless the same is extended by a Court of Law, the mandate of the Arbitrator shall stands terminated.
Sec 151 CPC Application Not Maintainable When Sect 29A(4) Of Arbitration Act Applies, Incorrect Quote Of Section Not Grounds For Dismissal: HP High Court
Case Title: Kamlu vs Collector Land Acquisition
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 52
The Himachal High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that an application under Section 151 of the CPC is not maintainable when a specific provision exists under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extending the time of arbitration proceedings. However, the bench also held that the application cannot be dismissed solely because it cited Section 151 CPC instead of Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act.
Applicability Of Section 5 Of Limitation Act To Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Excluded: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: The State of H.P. & Anr. V. M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd
Case Reference: OMP(M) No. 74 of 2023
The Himachal Pradesh High Court Bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that the prescribed period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act is three months and further that given the language used in proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of the Act, applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act to the petition under Section 34 of the Act has been excluded.
S. 29A Of Arbitration Act Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Which Commenced Before 2015 Amendment: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: National Highway Authority Of India vs Rishi Singh & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 70
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that provisions of Section 29A of the Act will not be applicable to the arbitration proceedings that had started before the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force.
Objection To Tribunal's Jurisdiction U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act Must Be Raised Before Or At Time Of Statement Of Defence: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: State of H.P. and another v. M/s Gurcharan Industries
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 71
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that a party is bound by virtue of Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act to raise any objection it may have to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal before or at the time of submission of its statement of defence, and at any time thereafter it is expressly prohibited.
Award Cannot Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Mere Illegality Unless Patent Illegality Is Established U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 74
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, affirmed that 'patent illegality' in the award calls for interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act but a mere illegality is not patent illegality. It ought to be apparent on the face of the award and not the one which is culled out by way of a long drawn analysis of pleadings and evidence.
Deposit Of Awarded Amount In Court Registry Sufficient To Extinguish Liability Arising Under Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Versus Kuldip Dogra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 76
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi has held that the deposit of awarded amount in pursuance of an order of the court into the court registry would be equivalent to payment under section 31 of the Arbitration Act. This will extinguish the liability arising under the award for which execution petition would then not be maintainable.
While Hearing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act, Court Must Confine Itself To Grounds U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India.Versus Vishesar (Since deceased) through LRs.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 77
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that supervisory role of Courts is very restricted in dealing with appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 of the Act is very narrow. Jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is narrower.Therefore, Courts must be very conservative while dealing with arbitral awards and confine themselves to the grounds strictly available under Section 34 of the Act.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Reiterates Limited Scope Of Court Intervention U/S 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India vs. Devi Ram & Others
Citation: 2024:HHC:11447
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Virender Singh has reiterated that the scope of interference with arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is narrow and not akin to appellate jurisdiction. Courts may only interfere if the award exhibits patent illegality or arbitrariness that goes to the root of the matter.
Deposit Of Awarded Amount In Court Registry Sufficient To Extinguish Liability Arising Under Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Versus Kuldip Dogra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 76
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi has held that the deposit of awarded amount in pursuance of an order of the court into the court registry would be equivalent to payment under section 31 of the Arbitration Act. This will extinguish the liability arising under the award for which execution petition would then not be maintainable.
While Hearing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act, Court Must Confine Itself To Grounds U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India.Versus Vishesar (Since deceased) through LRs.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 77
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that supervisory role of Courts is very restricted in dealing with appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 of the Act is very narrow. Jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is narrower.Therefore, Courts must be very conservative while dealing with arbitral awards and confine themselves to the grounds strictly available under Section 34 of the Act.
Petition Filed After Expiry Of Limitation Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Entertained Unless Sufficient Cause Is Shown: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: Engineer-in-Chief & Ors. Versus Dev Raj
Case Reference:OMP(M) No. 25 of 2024 in Arb. Case No. 851 of 2024
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot be entertained which is filed beyond the prescribed period of 3 months under section 34(3) of the Act in the absence of sufficient cause being shown.
Case Title: Ashok Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
Case Number: Arb. Case No. 18 of 2012
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya, while a Section 34 petition, has held that when an award has been found to be rendered without giving any reasoning regarding the adjudication of the disputes, the said award suffers from patent illegality apparent on the face of the award, and liable to be set aside.
Court Not Having Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/S 34 Cannot Go Into Merits Of Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Versus Himachal Pradesh Farmers' Forum
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 82
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that once the court comes to the conclusion that it didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it cannot go into the merits of the case.
This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act arose out of an order passed by the District Judge by which objections preferred under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the award were rejected.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
High Court At Designated 'Venue' Has Jurisdiction, J&K High Court Dismisses S. 11 Application
Case Title: Babu Ram vs Tata Project Ltd. Residential Manager and Ors.
Case Title:Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr.
Case Number: CM(M) No.102/2023 CM No.2991/2023
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar
held that interest for the prereference period as well as the pendente lite interest cannot be claimed under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
The bench held that when pre-suit interest, pendente lite interest and future interest has to be awarded on the principal sum adjudged, the interest can be awarded only on the principal sum and it does not provide for payment of interest on interest. Therefore, it held that there is no scope for the award of interest on the pendente lite interest under the Arbitration Act, of 1940.
Non-Response To Demands Invalidates Invocation of Mutual Negotiations Clause in Arbitration Agreements: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Case Title: Ramtech Software Private Limited Vs Ut Of J&K And Another
Case Number: Arb P. No.41/2023
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that if a party didn't respond to the demands and requests made by the other party, it can't invoke the part of the arbitration clause that such disputes and differences shall be an endeavoured to be resolved by mutual negotiations as a condition precedent for invoking the arbitration clause.
Disputes Predominantly Civil But Involving Elements Of Criminality Not Automatically Excluded From Arbitration: Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Case Title: M/s Tata Power Solar vs UT of J&K and Ors.
Case Number: Arb P No. 36/2023
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has held that a dispute predominantly civil but involving elements of criminality is not automatically excluded from arbitration.
The bench noted that unless there is a specific allegation of the parties engaging in an agreement amounting to criminal conspiracy, there should be no blanket prohibition on referring such disputes to arbitration.
Any attempt To Modify Award Under Section 34 is not permissible: J&K High Court
Case Title: UT of J&K Vs M/s Hindustan Constructions Co. Limited and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 203
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has set aside a judgment from a subordinate court modifying an arbitral award while underscoring that under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, courts lack the authority to modify arbitral awards and can only either uphold or set aside the awards.
Fresh Arbitrator Can Be Appointed By Court U/S 14 Of Arbitration Act If Proposed Arbitrator Is Ineligible U/S 12(5): J&K And Ladakh HC
Case Title: M/s Mir Associates Construction Company Vs. Superintending Engineer Hydraulic Circle Doda and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 313
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan affirmed that when the arbitration clause is found to be foul with the amended section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, the appointment of the arbitrator would be beyond the pale of the arbitration agreement. In such eventuality, the court can be approached under section 14 of the Arbitration Act for seeking substitution of the arbitrator.
Case Title: M/s Pardeep Electricals and Building Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 314
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that once the statutory remedy under contract is exhausted, arbitration clause can be invoked and appointment of the arbitrator can be sought under section 11 of the Arbitration Act.In this case, the respondent had to constitute Dispute resolution Board (DRB) within 30 days after execution of the contract for resolving any dispute arising between the parties but no DRB was constituted.
Interest On Awarded Amount Cannot Exceed Rate Of 6% As Provided U/S 30(7) Of J&K Arbitration Act: High Court
Case Title: Union of India Vs M/S Sharma Construction Co. Akhnoor District Jammu
Case Number: AA No. 09/2014
The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court bench of Justice M A Chowdhary has held that section 30(7) of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 1997 which was amended in 2010 is retrospective in nature. The interest on the awarded amount cannot exceed the rate of 6% per annum as provided in the section.
Petition U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Entertained After Lapse Of 3 Yrs From Date Of Cause Of Action Arising: J&K High Court
Case Title: M/s Mir Sons Constructions Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 332
The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that the petition under section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot be entertained after lapse of 3 years from the date of cause of action having arisen.
Appointment Of Managing Director/Chairman Of Party As Arbitrator Is Prohibited U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: J&K High Court
Case Title: Avtar Krishan Suri V/s The Estate Manager, J&K Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 336
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that managing director or chairman of a party to the arbitration agreement cannot be appointed as Arbitrator in light of section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act.
Award Passed By Ineligible Arbitrator Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Jammu And Kashmir HC
Case Title: JAMKASH VEHICLEADS KASHMIR PVT LIMITED & ANR Vs. M/S WUERTH INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 348
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has held that award passed by an ineligible arbitrator is liable to be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: M/s Smart Chip Private Limited vs Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 100
Case Number: A. Appl. No. 32 of 2023
Case Title: Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. M/s Rites Ltd. and Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 91
Case Title: Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Limited vs Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 106
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has held that in Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is required to see whether there is an arbitration clause which as per section 7 should be a document in writing signed by the parties. Furthermore, where the existence of the arbitration agreement is undisputed by the parties involved, the dispute should accordingly be referred to arbitration.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4604 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice M G Uma held that the parties not signatories to the Joint Venture Agreement, stipulating the arbitration clause, cannot be forced to arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, CRP No. 100067 of 2022
The High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award.
The bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however, this deeming fiction is limited to its enforcement only.
Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible Under Arbitration Act And Negotiable Instruments Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.434 Of 2014 (A) C/W Criminal Appeal No.433 Of 2014 (A)
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Anil B Katti held that simultaneous proceedings can be carried on under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138
Case Title: Buoyant Technology Constellations Pvt Ltd v. Manyata Infrastructure Developments Pvt Ltd, WP. 8654 of 2024
The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a writ petition seeking termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 29A of the A&C Act by observing that the arbitrator had proceeded diligently and it was the petitioner itself who had taken various adjournments causing delay. It imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner.
The bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and C.M. Poonacha held that the 12 months period for delivery of an arbitral award under Section 29A would begin from the date of completion of proceedings which would also include a sur-rejoinder statement if permitted.
Case Title: M/s Azeem Infinite Dwelling v. M/s Patel Engineering, Commercial Appeal No. 60 of 2024
The High Court of Karnataka has held that a termsheet for buyout is only an offer and a contract if it was valid only for a limited period or till the execution of a definitive agreement.
The Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Anant Ramanath Hedge ruled that a termsheet would expire if the specified period for executing a definitive agreement passes without such an agreement being made. It held that an expired termsheet cannot be enforced or acted upon.
The Issue Of Limitation Is Also Part And Parcel Of The Arbitrable Point: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Shivaraj Kamshetty v. The Managing Director Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board, Civil Misc Petition No. 20003 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
The bench of Justice C.M. Joshi of Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) has held that the issue of limitation of claims is a part and parcel of the arbitrable point which can be decided by the arbitrator.
The Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in BSNL v. Nortel Neworks, LL 2021 SC 153 wherein the Apex Court held that issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which should be decided by the arbitral tribunal. Further, the Court had held that the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act can refuse arbitration only when the claims are ex-facie barred by limitation.
Case Title: Mr. Shyamal Mukherjee Vs Pricewaterhousecoopers Services LLP
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice R. Devdas has held that prior involvement as an arbitrator in a dispute or multiple appointments by one of the parties or its affiliate does not automatically disqualify an individual from serving as an arbitrator in subsequent cases. The crucial factor lies in the arbitrator's ability to demonstrate independence and impartiality in past proceedings.
Ex-Parte Interim Measures Appealable Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act, Courts Must Allow Appeal In Exceptional Cases: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s KLR Group Enterprises vs Madhu HV and Ors.
Case No.: Commercial Appeal No. 56 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that ex-parte interim measures granted under Section 9 are appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. The High Court held that the nature of ex-parte interim measures is similar to final orders since they conclusively deny the relief sought. However, it held that the interference should be in exceptional cases since the aggrieved party can move to vacate the ex-parte order.
Lis Pendens Principle Applies To Property Acquired During Section 9 Arbitration Proceedings: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that an individual who acquires property that is the subject of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subject to the principle of lis pendens.
The issue before the High Court was whether the transaction was affected by the principle of lis pendens as outlined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Non-Signatories Bound By Arbitration Clause When Purchasing Property From Agreement Parties: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement but buys property from someone who is a party to the agreement is still bound by the arbitration clause that applies to their vendors.
The High Court noted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decision in Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited and Another was primarily concerned with whether the phrase "claiming through or under" in Section 8 of the Arbitration Act includes the "Group of Companies" doctrine and whether this doctrine, as previously outlined in Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., constitutes valid law.
Settlement Arising From Contract Containing Arbitration Clause Must Be Resolved Through Arbitration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347 The Karnataka High Court division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that the right to enforce the settlement has to be through arbitration as the alleged settlement is in respect of a transaction arising from the contract which contained an arbitration clause.
Case Title: Sri R. Nataraj vs. Smt. R. Punitha & Ors.
Case Number: M.F.A. No.6586 of 2024 (AA)
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has held that if an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, the party cannot be deemed to have waived its right to invoke the arbitration clause. The court observed that the filing of the written statement and application for reference under Section 8 simultaneously cannot lead to an inference that the Appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and had waived its right to seek reference to arbitration.
'Reasoned Order' Passed By Arbitrator/District Court Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 37 Of A&C Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mr. N. Rajgopal Hebbar vs. Mrs. Padmavathi & Ors.
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5460/2016 (AA) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5461/2016 (AA) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5462/2016 (AA) IN M.F.A.NO.5462/2016
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has reiterated that when a reasoned order has been passed by the Arbitrator, the same cannot be interfered with. In the case, the court found that the District Court had properly considered sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, as well as relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act in modifying the arbitral award. The court, therefore, refused to interfere with the award under section 37(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Reference Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act Should Be Filed Within 120 Days From Date Of Service Of Summons: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: SRI.THANGAVELU. R v. SHRI. SANTHOSH. J
Case Number: CRP No. 265 of 2022
The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar has held that a reference application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should have been filed within a period of 120 days from the date of service of summons to the defendant, which was long passed before 20.03.2019. Thus, where the reference application under Section 8 of the Act was made long after the expiry of the outer limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons, such a reference could not be construed to have been made at the earliest.
Kerala High Court
Court Empowered To Extend Time For Passing Arbitral Award Even If It Is Already Passed: Kerala High Court
Case Number: IA.NO.1/2023 IN AR NO. 53 OF 2019
Case Title: Sabu George & Ors. v. James George & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
Arbitration Clause Valid But Unilateral Appointment Part Is Invalid: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Travancore Rural Development Producer Company Ltd. Vs Divya Lakshmi Sanal And Ors
Case Number: AR NO. 74 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice G. Girish has held that arbitration clauses with provisions for the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator cannot be entirely rejected due to this defect. It held that the clauses are to be considered valid arbitration clauses except for those portions which confer the authority upon one party to unilaterally appoint arbitrators.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Suncity Dhoot Colonizers v. Ram Chandra, W.P. No. 28151 of 2023
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that an order of the arbitral tribunal rejecting a challenge to its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the A&C Act is not challengeable in a writ petition.
The bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari held that a party aggrieved by the rejection of its application under Section 16 of the AC& Act has to wait till the passing of the final award and then challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act including the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: J.K. Sthapak vs Satish Kumar Saxena and Anr.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench comprising Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal dismissed a revision petition seeking to invoke Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 based on a dispute related to the transfer of cheques under a partnership deed. The arbitration clause in the deed was about disputes arising between the parties, touching the firm's business or interpretation of any subsequent provisions relating to the firm and its business. The High Court noted there was no record suggesting that the mentioned amount was provided to the Petitioner concerning the partnership's business. As a result, the High Court concluded that Clause 22 of the partnership deed, which pertained to arbitration in business-related disputes, would not be applicable in this case.
The High Court observed that two cheques out of three were issued from the firm's account and one cheque was issued from the Respondent's account. The High Court further noted that even prima facie, there was no evidence to demonstrate that Rs. 22 Lakh was given to the Plaintiff from the firm's account. Consequently, there was no record suggesting that the mentioned amount was provided to the Petitioner concerning the partnership's business. As a result, the High Court concluded that Clause 22 of the partnership deed, which pertained to arbitration in business-related disputes, would not be applicable in this case.
Case Title: M/S Banco Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Narmada Extrusions Ltd
Case Number: ARBITRATION CASE No. 40 of 2022.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Anand Phatak held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding dishonoring of cheques and arbitration are two proceedings moving in different jurisdictional realm and they are parallel in nature rather than overlapping. It held that “both may continue because scope of Section 138 of the N.I. Act is confined to the dishonoured cheques, whereas dispute between the parties appears to be such deep and exact depth can only be fathomed by the arbitrator where parties would have all opportunities to canvas their cause.”
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Khandelwal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 11123 of 2019
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur bench has held that a writ would not be entertained when the petitioners fail to avail the efficacious contractual remedy before the Arbitrator.
The bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that merely because the nominated arbitrator is the managing director of the respondent corporation, it cannot be assumed that it would not be able to fairly discharge its functions as an arbitrator.
Case Title: Fulkunwar v. Saksham Pradikari, Writ Petition NO. 6939 of 2024
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that a writ petition filed to challenge an arbitral award is not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh held that a writ petition should be dismissed in limine when there is a statutory appeal available. It held that statutory remedies available under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act cannot be bypassed by the parties.
Case Title: Ilwonhibrand Co. Ltd. vs Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Devnarayan Mishra dismissed a petition seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, stating it should have been filed as a 'Miscellaneous Civil Case' rather than an 'Arbitration Case' based on Chapter 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Conduct of Arbitral Proceedings) Rules, 2008.
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar v. Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority, Arbitration Revision No. 47 of 2022
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur, has held that the Arbitration under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 cannot be invoked without first invoking the pre-arbitral in-house remedy provided under the agreement within the period of 30 days given under the Agreement.
The bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Vinay Saraf held that the pre-arbitral in-house remedy must be invoked within the 30 days from the termination of the works order as provided under the agreement. It held the 3 year limitation period as provided under Section 7 of the Act of 1983 would not be available for reference before the in-house authority.
Case Title: Yeshwant Boolani (Dead) through Lrs. Tarun Dhameja vs Sunil Dhameja and Anr.
Case No.: Arbitration Case No. 19 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that parties could not be compelled to opt for arbitration when the agreement clearly left it to the discretion of the parties. A discretionary arbitration clause would require the mutual consent of all parties for the dispute to be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: M/S Liladhar Laxminarayan Agrawal Vs Managing Director M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Vikas Nigam
Case Number: MISC. APPEAL No. 3747 of 2005
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat has held that there is no bar created by Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 that the court cannot entertain an application in respect of award until it has been filed. Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, of 1940, specifies the court jurisdiction for arbitration matters. It states that an award may be filed in any court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. It also states that all questions regarding the validity, effect, or existence of an award or arbitration agreement must be decided by the court where the award has been or may be filed, and not by any other court.
Arbitral Award Can Be Enforced Anywhere In Country Where Decree Is Executable: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited Versus Mr. Neelambar Singh Patel And Others
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION No. 240 of 2012
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal has held that an award could be enforced through its execution in any location within the country where the decree could be executed. The bench held that it is unnecessary to obtain a transfer of the decree from the Court that had jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.
State Not Part To Agreement Can't File Section 16 Application: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others Versus T.R.G. Industries Private Limited A Company Registered Under The Companies Act 1956 And Others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 12871 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani has held that an arbitration agreement entered into between the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, and a private company does not involve or implicate the State Government in any legal capacity. The bench held that such an agreement is exclusively between the central government ministry and the concerned company, thereby excluding any role or involvement of the State Government. As a result, the bench held that the State Government cannot be considered a party to the arbitration agreement or the related arbitral proceedings.
Objections To Jurisdiction Of Arbitrator Raised U/S. 34 Must Not Be Rejected Only On Jurisdiction Without Touching Merits Of Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/S Lion Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Case Number: Arbitration Appeal No. 23 of 2020
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh has held that objections to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, which are raised in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must not be rejected only on the ground of jurisdiction, without touching the merit of the case.
Plea Of Limitation Shall Be Deemed To Be Waived If Not Raised Before Arbitrator U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/S. UMA SHANKAR MISHRA Versus UNION OF INDIA
Case Reference: ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.24/2021
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that plea of limitation cannot be allowed to be raised first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act if no such plea was taken before the Arbitrator under section 16 of the Act. The court further observed that it shall be deemed to have been waived as per section 4 of the Act.
Award Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If Arbitrator Travels Beyond Arbitration Agreement: Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Versus RATLAM SYENTHETIC ROPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY THROUGH SMT. REKHA AND OTHERS
Case Reference: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 8 of 2018
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that if arbitrator travels beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement while passing an award, such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Award Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If Arbitrator Travels Beyond Arbitration Agreement: Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Versus RATLAM SYENTHETIC ROPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY THROUGH SMT. REKHA AND OTHERS
Case Reference: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 8 of 2018
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that if arbitrator travels beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement while passing an award, such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Award To Modify Or Declare It Void: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: AKME FINTRADE (INDIA) LTD. Versus SEEMA JAIN AND OTHERS
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 131 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi has held that executing court cannot go behind the award or decree to modify or declare it void.
Interest Cannot Be Awarded By Arbitrator When Awarding Of Interest Is Prohibited In Contract: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M.P. AUDYUOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM LTD AND OTHERS Versus MR. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Case Number: ARBITRATION REVISION No. 10 of 2019
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vinay Saraf has held that the tribunal has no discretion to award payment of interest when there is clear prohibition in the contract that the interest cannot be given.
Madras High Court
MSMED Act | Imposition Of Three Times Bank Interest By MSME Facilitation Council Is Violation Of Principles Of Reasonableness And Fairness: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s Bagalkot Cement & Industries Ltd vs The Chairperson, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
The Madras High Court single bench of Justice R. N. Manjula held that the imposition of three times of the bank rate of interest on the award amount by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Facilitation Council is violation of fundamental principles of reasonableness and fairness. It held that the Petitioner is indirectly deprived of his appeal remedy in view of such high rate of interest.
Case Title: Sahayaraj V. M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, CRP(MD) No. 576 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The High Court of Madras at Madurai has held that an Executing Court cannot go behind an arbitration award and decides issues on merit of the award.
The bench of Justice G. Ilangovan held that an arbitration award can only be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act and party failing to challenge the award therein cannot raise contentious issues on merit of the award before the executing court.
Case Title: M/s Colorhome Developers Pvt Ltd v. M/s Color Castle Owners Society, OSA(CAD) No. 113 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
The High Court of Madras has held that a plea regarding lack of jurisdiction or invalidity of the appointment of the arbitrator must be raised before the arbitrator during the arbitral proceedings. It held that if such a plea is not taken at the first instance or, the Court in appeal cannot entertain such an objection.
The bench of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel also held that an objection regarding validity of the invocation of the arbitration dismissed by the Court under Section 11 cannot be raised again in appeal.
Case Title: M/s Geojit Financial Services Ltd v. Mrs. Nalani Rajkumar, Original Side Appeal (CAD) No.51 of 2021
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
The High Court of Madras has held that an arbitration award based on an evidence taken on record after the completion of arguments and behind the back of a party would be liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel held that when an evidence is taken behind the back of a party and after the completion of arguments, it deprives that party of its valuable opportunity to dispute such evidence/document.
Case Title: M/S Kamla Construction Company And Anr. Vs M/S Kamla Construction Company And Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 10781 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held that when the government constitutes a proper dispute redressal system for resolution of any dispute between the parties, the party cannot directly approach the High Court and file a writ petition. It held that when the statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties (referred to Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Ltd vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 44).
Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator & Non Service Of Notice : Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award
Case Title: Vipul Kumar Tulsian and anr vs M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has set aside an arbitral award where the opposite party proceeded with arbitration unilaterally and appointed the Arbitrator without any intimation to the claimants. Further, the claimants neither received notices of hearing nor appeared before the Tribunal, and consequently, the Arbitrator did not afford any opportunity to claimants to contest the matter.
Formal Contract Signature Not Required To Enforce Arbitration Clause If Parties Are Ad Idem: Madras High Court
Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited vs M/s.Texmo Pipes and Products Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court division bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has held that if it is proved that if it is established that the parties are ad idem, a formal contract signature by the other party is not necessary to enforce the arbitration agreement.
Further, the bench held that by acting upon the Purchase Orders, the party implicitly accepted the terms, including the arbitration clause contained in the GCC.
Case Title: The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.KaThe Project Director, National Highways No.45E & 220, National Highways Authority of India vs M.Mallika Begam and anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has held that the administrative reason alone cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 950 days in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that delays attributable to administrative factors, such as changes in project management or internal procedural adjustments, do not constitute valid grounds for extending the limitation period for filing an appeal
Award Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality If Decision Of Arbitrator Is Perverse Or Irrational: Madras High Court
Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Offshore Infrastructures Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court Bench of Justice C.Saravanan held that patent illegality as a ground for setting aside an Award is available only if the decision of the Arbitrator is found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take or that the view of the Arbitrator is not even a possible view.
Arbitrator Nominated U/S 18(3) MSMED Act Erred In Deciding Merits After Finding Respondent Was Not MSME: Madras HC Upholds Setting Aside Of Award
Case Title: M/S. Sivadarshini Papers Limited vs. M/S. Sunwin Papers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
The Madras High Coury bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan has held that an Arbitrator ought not to decide the case on merits after coming to a conclusion that the respondent was not a Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and therefore not entitled to invoke the machinery under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The court upheld the setting aside of the award passed by the Arbitrator.
Award Must Not Be Set Aside On Ground Of Mere Erroneous Application Of Law Unless Patent Illegality Is Established U/S 34: Madras HC
Case Title: N.Jayamurugan Vs. M/s.Saravana Global Holdings Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited and within the contours of the ground specified under Section 34 of the Act. To put it otherwise, the award is not required to be set aside on the ground of mere erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of the evidence until and unless it suffers from patent illegality.
Construction Of Contract's Terms Is Task Of Arbitrator, Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 34 Unless Construction Is Unreasonable: Madras HC
Case Title: M/s.Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide unless the Arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do then only interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is justified.
Ineligibility Of Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged First Time Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: VR Dakshin Private Limited Verus SCM Silks Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
The Madras High Court bench of of Chief justice Mr. K.R.Shriram and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy has held that the ineligibility of the Arbitrator cannot be challenged for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act when there were enough opportunities to challenge the same in the earlier proceedings.
Odisha High Court
The Orissa High Court single bench of Justice KR Mohapatra held that Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council doesn't have power to entertain an application with regard to the maintainability of the reference at the conciliation stage under Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. It held that question of maintainability can only be adjudicated if arbitration is taken up by the Council.
Case Title: Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Odisha & Others vs M/s.Jagannath Choudhury
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
The Orrisa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash held that in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reappreciating evidence is not allowed in order to replace the arbitrator's view with another. It held that the views expressed by the arbitrator must be considered as possible interpretations based on the factual circumstances.
Section 34 deals with the application for setting aside an arbitral award. This section allows a party to challenge the arbitral award on specific grounds.
Limitation Period For Arbitration Starts From Date When Cause Of Action Accrued: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Odisha & Others vs M/s.Jagannath Choudhury
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 49
The Orissa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash has held that the period of limitation for commencing arbitration runs from the date when the cause of arbitration accrued. This means from the date when the claimant first acquired the right to either take action or require arbitration.
Therefore, the bench held that the limitation period for starting arbitration matches the period from when the cause of action would have accrued if there were no arbitration clause. The bench referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court's decision in Dwijendra Narayan Roy v. Jogesh Chandra Dey and held that just as claims in court actions must be brought within a specified number of years from the date the cause of action accrued, so must arbitration claims be initiated within the same timeframe from the date the claim accrued.
CPC Provisions Govern Stay Of Execution Proceedings Initiated Under Section 36(1) Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Birla Institute of Management & Technology (BIMTECH), Gothapatna, Bhubaneswar vs M/s. Fiberfill Interiors & Constructions, U.P.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
The Orissa High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra has held that held that since the Arbitration Act is silent on the aspect of filing an application before the executing court to stay the operation of execution proceedings initiated under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, the provisions of the CPC would be followed for this purpose.
MSME Council Award Can Be Challenged Only U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act, Not Under Articles 226 Or 227: Orissa High Court
Case Title: AES India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: W.A No.968 of 2024
The Odisha High Court bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has upheld that an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) could only be challenged in accordance with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as mandated by Section 19 of the MSMED Act. The court held that the Single Judge had rightly declined to entertain the challenge to the award under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, as such proceedings are impermissible when statutory remedies are available.
Dispute Related To Infringement Of Copyright Is Arbitrable, Arbitrator Can Be Appointed U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Shri Binaya Kumar Naik VersusSanjay Kumar Naik and another
Case Number:ARBP No. 9 of 2024
The Orissa High Court bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh has held that dispute related to infringement of copyright is arbitrable for which arbitrator can be appointed by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Vikas Bank Samiti, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 238 of 2021
In Absence Of An Express Agreement Waiving Applicability Of S.12(5) Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Arbitration Clause Becomes Otiose: Patna HC
Case Title: The State of Bihar vs. Kashish Developers Limited
Case Number: CIVIL REVIEW No.181 of 2023 In REQUEST CASE No.12 of 2023 with CIVIL REVIEW No. 182 of 2023
The Patna High Court bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran has held that the arbitration clause became otiose by reason of the substitution of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Act 3 of 2016, which made the Engineer-in-Chief or the administrative head of the Public Works Division ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator and disentitled from appointing an arbitrator. The court observed that in the absence of any express agreement waiving the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Act, the arbitration clause became otiose.
Findings Of Calcutta HC Cannot Be Challenged Before Courts At Patna After Objections Over Jurisdiction Were Dismissed: Patna High Court
Case Title: The State of Bihar versus M/s Tantia Construction Ltd.
Case Number: C. Misc. No.43 of 2022
The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar has held that the findings of the Calcutta High Court cannot be challenged in the Courts at Patna. Additionally, the court noted that the respondent had first approached the Calcutta High Court by preferring an application under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act would be attracted, and subsequent applications would not be maintainable before the Courts at Patna.
Once Person Empowered To Nominate Arbitrator Becomes Ineligible U/S 12(5), Matter Shall Not Be Referred To Arbitration: Patna High Court
Case Title: M/s R.S Construction Versus Infrastructure Development Authority and Ors.
Case Number: REQUEST CASE No.83, 85, 87 and 92 of 2024
The Patna High Court bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran has held that once the person empowered to nominate an arbitrator under an arbitration clause becomes ineligible to nominate the arbitrator, the matter shall not referred to the Arbitration.
S.12(5) Of A&C Act Provides For Agreement In Writing, Novation Can't Be Allowed Only Because Of Appointment Of Arbitrator At First Instance: Patna HC
Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited
Case Number: REQ. CASE No.53 of 2020
The Patna High Court Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran has held that the proviso to Section 12(5) specifically provided for a waiver by an express agreement in writing. When the statute provides for an express agreement in writing there can be no novation of the agreement found, by reason only of the appointment of an Arbitrator at the first instance.
Whether Claim Is Barred By Res Judicata Cannot Be Decided By Court At S.11 Stage Of Arbitration Act: P&H High Court
Case Title: M/s Rise Projects Private Limited Versus Municipal Corporation, Faridabad
Case Reference: ARB-108-2020
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Survir Sehgal affirmed that the question whether a claim is barred by res judicata, does not arise for consideration in a proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Such an issue will have to be examined by the arbitral tribunal under section 16 of the Act.
Specific Exclusion Clause In Agreement Renders Dispute Non-Arbitrable: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title:M/s Ganpati Rice & General Mills Versus Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited and another
Case Number: ARB-227-2019 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has held that when there is a specific exclusion clause in the agreement, the matter shall not be referred to Arbitration.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Akha Ram and Others vs National Highway Authority Of India and Others.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1805/2023.
The Rajasthan High Court single bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that determination of compensation under National Highways Act, 1956 can be challenged before the arbitrator appointment by the Central Government. The bench held that challenges to such determination fall under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Vimlesh Baregama v. Manglam Cement Ltd, S.B. Arbitration Application No. 23 of 2021
The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, has held that an application seeking the appointment of an arbitrator would not be allowed if the parties had already entered into a full and final settlement, and the applicant had encashed the settlement amount without protest or objection. The Court held that in such cases, the dispute would be considered non-arbitrable.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava's bench further clarified that a petition seeking the appointment of an arbitrator would be deemed frivolous if it fails to disclose the full and final settlement between the parties and the encashment of cheques issued as part of the settlement.
The Court explained that although there is limited scrutiny permissible under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a petition may still be allowed, and an arbitrator appointed, if the petitioner can demonstrate fraud or economic duress. However, the Court emphasized that if the settlement amount was accepted without protest, the petition seeking the appointment of an arbitrator would not be maintainable.
Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 70 of 2023
The Telangana High Court single bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe held that the precondition for invoking the arbitration clause is considered fulfilled when parties explore the possibility of settling the dispute amicably through arbitration. Correspondence and exchanges between the parties can be perused to assess whether there was an agreement over an amicable settlement.
Case Title: M/s Blue City Indane vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
Case Number: S.B. Arbitration Application No. 18/2020
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that arbitration hinges on the presence of a dispute arising from the agreement between the involved parties. The bench held that any dispute unrelated to the terms of the agreement between the parties cannot be subject to the arbitration clause and therefore cannot be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause.
Arbitral Tribunal First To Adjudge Non-Arbitrability Of Dispute And Ground Of Res-Judicata, Courts Can Have Second Look After Award: Rajasthan HC
Title: Dilip Kumar v Dharampal Choudhary & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati at the Rajasthan High Court accepted an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator and observed that the issue of non-arbitrability of a dispute under an arbitration agreement falls under the domain of the arbitral tribunal in the first instance and the courts have the power to only “second look” after passing of the arbitral award.The Court also opined that the question regarding the claim being barred by res judicata does not arise for consideration in proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, and hence, it also needs to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal only.
Rajasthan High Court Holds Arbitral Award To Be Patently Illegal Due To Concealment Of Material Facts, Violation Of HC Order
Case Title: State Of Rajasthan v. M/s Atlanta Ltd.
Case Number: 2024:RJ-JP:41526-DB
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar has held that it was the bounden duty of the respondent to apprise the Arbitral Tribunal about the dismissal of the writ petition. Non-disclosure of the same, tantamount to grave misconduct on part of the respondent.
Additionally, the court observed that the use of the word 'however' does not mean that the decision that Steering Group had no jurisdiction to extend the concession period becomes redundant. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the decision of the Steering Group for extension of concession is binding on the parties. The same being contrary to the judgment passed by the High Court is patently illegal..
Unless Appointment Of Arbitrator Under Arbitration Clause Is Ex-Facie Valid, Jurisdiction Of Court U/S 11(6) Cannot Be Barred: Rajasthan HC
Case Title: Surendra Sarda S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Sharda Versus Shri Maheshwari Samaj and Ors.
Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Raj 351
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal affirmed that unless the appointment of the arbitrator is ex facie valid and such appointment satisfies the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, acceptance of such appointment as a fait accompli to debar the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) cannot be countenanced in law.
Court In Exercise Of Supervisory Jurisdiction Shall Not Interfere With Arbitral Award, Limited Scope Of Interference: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Leeladhar Devkinandan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 417
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati held that it is a well settled law that the interpretation of the clause of Agreement by the Arbitrator shall not be open to judicial interference unless it is demonstrated before the Court that the interpretation put by the Arbitral Tribunal was perverse.
Additionally, the court held that if the view taken by the Arbitrator is logical and acceptable merely because two views are possible the Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction shall not interfere with the Arbitral award.
Sikkim High Court
Arbitration Agreement Remains Valid Even If Underlying Contract Is Terminated: Sikkim High Court
Case Title: State of Sikkim Versus M/s Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions (P) Ltd.
Case Reference: Arb. A. No. 02 of 2016
The Sikkim High Court bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan affirmed that it is well settled that if the contract containing arbitration clause is rendered invalid or void, it does not affect the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement would continue to exist and the validity of which will be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/S Sms Limited vs Uranium Corporation Of India Limited
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.175 of 2023.
Arbitrator Taking A Different View Is Not A Ground To Set Aside Award: Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/S Nile Ltd. vs Sri Gurdip Singh and Another
Case Title: M/s Naolin Infrastructure Private Ltd. vs M/s Kalpana Industries
Case Title: K. Venkateswara Rao vs Union Of India.
Case Title: Valmar Projects Llp vs Isthara Parks Private Limited
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos.6 AND 7 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 110
Case Title: Sri Sai Krishna Constructions vs Harvins Constructions Plimited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS)103
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos.221 of 2023 and 32 of 2024
Court Must Assign Reasons When Releasing Amount Under Section 19 of MSME Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: National Small Industries Corporation vs Brahma Teja Paper Products
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS)104
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1543 of 2024
Case Title: M/S. Lignite Power Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Totale Global Private Ltd
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.205 of 2023
Telangana HC Explains Section 31(7)(A) And (B) Of The A&C Act,1996 In Terms Of Timeframes, Embargo & Discretion
Case Title: The Union Of India, Secbad And 3 Others vs M/S. Suntechno Constructions
Case Number: C.M.A.No.857 OF 2016
Case Title: Shameen Sultana Khan vs Faizunnisaa Begum
Case Title: Gugilla Aruna vs Adluri Ramesh Babu
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.476 of 2021
Commercial Courts Empowered To Hear Commercial Original Petition Arising From Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Narayana Educational Institutions v. Mrs Paruchuri Janaki and Anr.
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 2243 of 2024
Arbitral Tribunal Is The Fulcrum And The Facilitator For Taking Evidence Under Section 27 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: V. Sreenivas Reddy v. B.L. Rathnamma
Case Title: Mrs. Bibi Hajjar Dashti vs Mr. Syed Ali Asghar Bolooki
Case Number: COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No.14 OF 2024
The Telangana High Court Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe And Justice J.Sreenivas Rao held that impartiality is an essential attribute of a Receiver. Therefore, normally one of the parties to a lis should not be appointed as Receiver without consent of the other parties unless a very special case is made out.
Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Only Checks For Existence Of Agreement, Jurisdictional Questions To Be Decided By Arbitrator: Telangana HC
Case Title: M/s K.D. SOLAR SYSTEMS v. M/s. Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.176 of 2024
The Telangana High Court Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe affirmed that Sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides that the Arbitral Tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, “including any objections” with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Section 16 is an inclusive provision, which would comprehend all preliminary issues touching upon the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. The issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would be required to be decided by the arbitrator under Section 16, and not the High Court at the pre-reference stage under Section 11 of the Act.
Case Title: PSM Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. ZAM Engineering and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Reference: COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No.20 OF 2024
The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sreenivas Rao, affirmed that where multiple agreements are interconnected and form part of a single commercial transaction then only the presence of an arbitration clause in one or more agreements can justify referring all disputes, involving all agreements and parties, to arbitration. This is true even if some agreements lack an arbitration clause. In this case, the court found that agreements were not interconnected.
MSEFC Must Decide Question On Limitation Before Adjudicating Dispute On Merits: Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/s K/12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Brahma Teja Paper
Case Number: CRP 3136/2024 and CRP 3162/2024
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam. Koshy, while hearing a petition filed under Article 227, has held that the issues of maintainability, particularly the question of limitation, are to be decided by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) before proceeding to adjudicate the dispute on merits.
Uttarakhand High Court
On Recusal Of Arbitrator Appointed By Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act, Substitute Arbitrator Can Be Appointed U/S 15(2): Uttarakhand HC
Case Title: Shri Rajendra Mimani Versus Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited
Case Number:Arbitration Application No. 7 of 2024
The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari has held that on recusal of previously appointed Arbitrator appointed by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act , a substitute Arbitrator can be appointed by the court under section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act.