Supreme Court 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...
Supreme Court
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.
S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court
Case Title: GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court
Case Title: GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
“The scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is limited to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. In the present case, the High Court exceeded this limited scope by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix. The High Court erroneously proceeded to assess the auditor's report in detail and dismissed the arbitration application. In our view, such an approach does not give effect to the legislative intent behind the 2015 amendment to the Act, 1996 which limited the judicial scrutiny at the stage of Section 11 solely to the prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.”, the bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.
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”).
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
Allahbad High Court
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.
Arbitral Award Based On Law Prevailing At Time Of Proceedings Cannot Be Held To Be Illegal Due To Subsequent Apex Court Ruling: Allahabad HC
Case Title: Vivek Nayak (Died) And Another v. The Arbitrator / Collector Aligarh And 3 Others
Case Reference: 2024:AHC:165809
The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, held that if parties were allowed to reopen concluded arbitrations based on new judicial rulings, it would lead to a flood of claims seeking to modify or overturn arbitral awards. Moreover, the retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos. Arbitrators make decisions based on the legal framework and precedents available at the time of the arbitration. Expecting them to foresee and apply future judicial decisions is unreasonable and impractical.
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.
Benefit Of SC Judgment On Extension Of Limitation During COVID-19 Can't Be Granted On Mere Asking, Especially When Party Is In Default: Allahabad HC
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another v. Chaurasiya Enterprises and 2 others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 305 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of extension of limitation during COVID-19, as per In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, cannot be granted to a party merely for the asking, especially when there is default on the part of the party seeking such extension.
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.
Bonbay High Court
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
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
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
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
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
Case Title: PayU Payments Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
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
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
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
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
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
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
Case Title: Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
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
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
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1144
Case Title: M/S Sultan Chand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Kartik Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1148
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
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1151
Standard Is Higher For Post-Award Section 9 Relief, Order To Deposit Amount Not Passed In Routine Manner: Delhi HC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1154
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Case Title: Shamlaji Expressway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1173
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
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
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
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
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
Case Title: M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192
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
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
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
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
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
Scope Of Review U/S 37 Is Limited To Ascertaining Compliance With S. 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. Paramount Communications Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1222
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee affirmed that the Court under section 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision
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.
Pre-Requirement Of Conciliation Before Invoking Arbitration Can't Prevent Filing Of Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title:CENTAURUS GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus RAJSHREE EDUCATIONAL TRUST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that pre requirement of conciliation in an arbitration clause before invoking the arbitration cannot be a bar to file an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
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.
Pre-Requirement Of Conciliation Before Invoking Arbitration Can't Prevent Filing Of Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title:CENTAURUS GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus RAJSHREE EDUCATIONAL TRUST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that pre requirement of conciliation in an arbitration clause before invoking the arbitration cannot be a bar to file an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
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.
Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence And Substitute Arbitrator's Conclusion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: In-Time Garments Pvt. Ltd. versus HSPS Textile Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1257
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad affirmed that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the Arbitrator even though a different conclusion can be arrived at on re-appreciating evidence
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.Special Treatment Cannot Be Given To Govt For Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
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.
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.
Gauhati High Court
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
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.
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
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 CourtFresh 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.
Karnataka High Court
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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
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
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
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.
Patna High Court
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.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Active Promoters Private Limited vs. Desh Raj and Others
Case Number: FAO-CARB-3-2020 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justices Arun Palli and Vikram Aggarwal has reiterated that the scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is narrow, and the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is even more circumscribed. The court reiterated that jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction. It held that interference with an arbitral award is permissible only if it conflicts with public policy or is patently illegal. The court reiterated that an award should not be set aside simply based on an alternative interpretation of the agreement.
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.
S.12(5) Of Arbitration Act Would Be Applicable To Arbitral Proceedings Which Commenced Before 2015 Amendment Act: P&H High Court
Case Title: SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others
Case Reference: ARB-337-2017 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal has held that the provision of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act would applicable to arbitral proceedings which were initiated prior to 2015 Amendment came into force and continued thereafter.
Executing Court Can Direct Award-Debtor To Deposit Decretal Amount In Court Until Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Disposed Of: P&H High Court
Case Title: Apollo International Limited v. Man Structurals Private Limited
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal has held that executing court under section 36 of the Arbitration Act can direct the award debtor to deposit the decretal amount in the court registry till the disposal of the petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court also observed that while deciding an application under Section 36 (3) of the Arbitration Act, whereby stay has been sought by the judgment debtor, the merit of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act are not to be considered.
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
Prior To 2015 Amendment Act, Non-Disclosure Of Information Per Se Not A Ground To Incur Disqualification U/S 12 Of Arbitration Act: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s Anik Industries Ltd v. M/s Shree Rajasthan Sintex Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 319
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman held that under section 12 of the Arbitration Act after the amendment act of 2015, there is a specific reference of ineligibility in the circumstances referred under the Seventh Schedule. This means per se there is an ineligibility if there exists any circumstance, which is specifically referred to in the Seventh Schedule. Such a per se ineligibility, which has been statutorily recognized under the amended provision, was not in existence under unamended section 12 of the Arbitration Act.
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.
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.
Referral Court Has Limited Role U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act To Verify Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: PME Power Solutions (India) Ltd.Versus Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Raj 352
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal affirmed that the scope of arbitration application, in view of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is confined and limited to the extent of examining the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties for resolution of dispute.
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.
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.
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: 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.
Telangana High Court Reiterates Limited Scope For Interference With Arbitral Awards U/S 34 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
Case Title: The Andhra Pradesh State Trading Corporation Ltd. v. M/S. Hima Bindu Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1079 of 2006
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao has held that an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the encashment of a bank guarantee does not warrant interference under section 34 of the Act. The court also held that section 34 does not permit the court to act as an appellate body or correct errors of law or fact.
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.
District Court
Arbitral Award Passed By Sole Arbitrator Appointed Unilaterally Is Without Jurisdiction And Non-Est: Delhi Court
Case Title: Sumit Gera v. M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Case Reference: DLCT01-003012-2021
The Commercial Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, comprising Justice Sanjay Sharma-II, held that an arbitration award passed by a sole arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the respondent is without jurisdiction and non-est. In this case a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed challenging an award passed by a sole arbitrator.
Unsuccessful Litigant In Arbitral Proceedings Cannot Claim Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Bengaluru Court
Case Title: Overseas Pharma Private Limited vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha
Case Reference: COM.A.A . 241 /2024
The Bengaluru District Court Bench of Justice Sri Arjun S. Mallur held that a party whose claim has been rejected in the course of the arbitral proceedings cannot obviously have an arbitral award enforced in accordance with Sec.36. The object and purpose of an interim measure after passing of the arbitral award but before it is enforced is to secure the property, goods or amount for the benefit of the party which seeks enforcement.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar Sharma vs Innovation Impex Pvt Ltd
Case Reference: OMP (COMM) 61/19
The Commercial Court, District Saket Courts, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ajay Kumar Jain, held that the Court under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot substitute its own views or the views of the parties with the view taken by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, if the view taken by the Ld. Arbitrator is not in conflict with the settled legal position.
Arbitrator Is Final Arbiter On Facts And Law, Interference U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Only Permissible When Findings Are Perverse: Delhi Court
Case Title: MS North West Sales And Marketing Ltd vs Sunita Arora
Case Reference: OMP (COMM)/12/2023
The Commercial Court, Delhi Bench of Justice Ms. Hemani Malhotra held that the scope of interference is only where the findings of the Tribunal is either contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties , or ex-facie, perverse, that interference by the Court is absolutely necessary.
Case Title: Sh. Pankaj Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Case Reference: ARBTN No.7418/17
The Delhi Commercial Court Bench of Justice MR. SATYABRATA PANDA held that Section 12 of the A&C Act as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act would be applicable to arbitral proceedings initiated prior to coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act as well.
Not Taking Objection To Non-Compliance Of Provisions Of Arbitration Act Shall Be Deemed Waiver U/S 4 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi Court
Case Title: M/s Telecommunications Consultants India Limited v. Veekay Connectors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Reference: OMP (Comm.) No.01/2022
The Delhi Commercial Court Bench of Justice SH.RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI held that a party, who proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to non-compliance of any provision of the Arbitration Act, without any undue delay shall be deemed to have waived his right to object as per section 4 of Arbitration Act.
Section 12 Of Arbitration Act As Amended By 2015 Amendment Applicable To Proceedings Initiated Before 2015 Amendment Act: Delhi Court
Case Title: Sh. Pankaj Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Case Reference: ARBTN No.7418/17
The Delhi Commercial Court Bench of Justice MR. SATYABRATA PANDA held that Section 12 of the A&C Act as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act would be applicable to arbitral proceedings initiated prior to coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act as well.
Not Taking Objection To Non-Compliance Of Provisions Of Arbitration Act Shall Be Deemed Waiver U/S 4 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi Court
Case Title: M/s Telecommunications Consultants India Limited v. Veekay Connectors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Reference: OMP (Comm.) No.01/2022
The Delhi Commercial Court Bench of Justice SH.RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI held that a party, who proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to non-compliance of any provision of the Arbitration Act, without any undue delay shall be deemed to have waived his right to object as per section 4 of Arbitration Act.