Supreme Court 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...
Supreme Court
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”).
Arbitration Can't Be 'Optional' When Agreement Provides Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court
Case Title: TARUN DHAMEJA VERSUS SUNIL DHAMEJA & ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 996
The Supreme Court held that there cannot be an 'optional' arbitration, where parties are required to mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause.
Setting aside the MP High Court's decision, the Court said that there is nothing like 'optional arbitration' that could be invoked after both parties mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause. According to the Court, arbitration is not 'optional' in practice.
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
Allahabad High Court
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.
Bombay High Court
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
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.
Chhatisgarh High Court
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
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.
Friendly Consultation Necessary Before Issuing Section 21 Notice: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S N. J. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus M/S CAPITALGRAM MARKETING AND TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1384
The Delhi High Court bench of J. C. Hari Shankar has held that in the present case there is no scope for negotiation between the parties, much less friendly negotiations.
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: 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 & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
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.
Karnataka High Court
'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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
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
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.
Orissa High Court
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.
Patna High Court
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.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
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
Interpretation Of Contractual Stipulations Must Be Done To Give Full Effect To Arbitration Agreement: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s Argon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd.
Case Number: ARBAP-64/2023
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that it is a well-established principle of law if there is any contractual stipulation between the parties which under-mines the scope of the arbitration clause. Then, the same will be given an interpretation in the manner which gives full effect to the arbitration agreement between the parties.
Referral Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Enter Into Merits Of Subject Matter Of Disputes: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s R.K. Constructions Versus Ganesh Narayan Jaiswal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot enter into merits of subject matter of the disputes. It has to see only the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
Whether Arbitration Agreement Has All Essential Elements Can Better Be Decided By Tribunal U/S 16 Of A&C Act: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s Terrace Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited through its Managing Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that the issue of validity of arbitration agreement more particularly in respect of having essential elements of the arbitration agreement, can better be considered and decided on merits by the arbitration tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
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.
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.