High Courts

Calcutta High Court

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.

Delhi High Court

Restraining Party From Participating In Any Tender Process U/S 9 of Arbitration Act Will Actually Thwart Competition: Delhi High Court

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.

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

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

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.

Patna High Court

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.

Rajasthan High Court

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.