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...
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.
Allahabad 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.
Bombay 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.
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.
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
The Delhi High Court has held that the consent of a non-signatory to arbitral proceedings is not required for the appointment of the arbitrator.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 14 petition challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction, has held that the appointment of an arbitrator without the consent of a non-signatory would not be an unilateral appointment. The requirement to reach a consensus for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 21 applies to the parties to the arbitration agreement and not a non-signatory who is included in the arbitral proceedings.
Application Of MSMED Act And Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Over Contractual Disputes Must Be Determined By Arbitral Tribunal,Not By Court In Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1089
The Delhi High Court has clarified the legal position of the intersection between the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash a notice requesting the parties to file their Statement of Claims (SoC) and subsequent communications, has clarified the legal position concerning the period of limitation under Section 18(5), the registration of an MSME supplier following the issuance of purchase order and the impact on MSME Claims.
Three-Arbitrator Tribunal To Become Sole Arbitrator Tribunal On Failure Of Party To Appoint Its Arbitrator- Delhi High Court To Examine
Case Title: Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Mirador Commercial Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1090
The Delhi High Court has resolved to examine an arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), if the same is affected by the line of judgments following Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. United Telecoms Ltd and Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while dismissing the petitions filed under Section 14(2) read with Section 14(1) seeking termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate, held that the arbitration clause in the GCC and the one under consideration in the line of judgments following Perkins Eastman being significantly different requires consideration.
Case Title: PayU Payments Private Limited v. The New India Assurance Co Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1113
The Delhi High Court, following the law laid down in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning, has held that the aspects of non-arbitrability of a claim are for the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate, and courts at Section 11 stage cannot examine the same.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, has held that post SBI General Insurance, the scope of examination of a referral court has been restricted to examining the prima facie existence of arbitration agreement. The court under Section 11 jurisdiction cannot hold that the respondent's repudiation of the claim has made the dispute non-arbitrable, as this would amount to the court pronouncing on the arbitrability of the dispute.
While Adjudicating On Challenges Against Arbitral Tribunals' Orders U/S 17 Of A&C Act, Court Not Strictly Bound By O.38 & O.39 CPC: Delhi HC
Case Title: LAVA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs MINTELLECTUALS LLP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1114
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in orders passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not bound by the principles underlying Order XXXVIII and XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code.
The court observed that interference with such orders is limited to cases where the orders are "perverse or manifestly arbitrary." The court found no fault with the tribunal's reduction of the security amount and requirement of robust security and held that such security was an interim measure and not a final determination of liability.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due To Failure Of Arbitrator To Disclose Conflict, Non-Supply Of Documents
Case Title: FLFL TRAVEL RETAIL LUCKNOW PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1116
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that the duty of arbitrators of disclosure of any conflicts under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and continuous throughout the proceedings. The court noted that disclosure must be in writing and a verbal disclosure does not suffice. The court also held that there was a violation of section 18 of the Act as the party has not had an opportunity to consider and respond to submissions on evidence furnished by the opposing party.
Forum Shopping Is Abuse Of Legal Process And Cannot Be Condoned: Delhi High Court
Case title: MICHAEL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. v. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1121
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has held that forum shopping, i.e., such conduct, where the petitioner attempts to choose a forum favourable to them after having already approached the appropriate forum, is an abuse of legal process and cannot be condoned.
Delhi High Court Stays Decision Of Apex Council Which Altered Result Of 'Legends League' Cricket Match After Being Declared
Case Title: Mriksha Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Absolute Legends Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1122
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta, while hearing a Section 9 petition under the A&C Act, has granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the communication of Event Technical Committee (ETC) and the Apex Council which allowed the result of a cricket match to be altered after the result has been announced.
Article 227 Cannot Be Invoked When Interrogatories & Discoveries Allowed By Tribunal Are Not In Nature Of Fishing Inquiry: Delhi HC
Case Title: M/s Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited v. M/s Sharda Developers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1123
The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of review under Article 227 is extremely narrow; the same cannot be invoked when the interrogatories and discoveries allowed by the tribunal have a co-relation and nexus with the subject matter of the dispute.
The bench of Justice Manoj Jain, while hearing two claim petitions, held that where the seller offered alternate plots in similar projects upon the frustration of the agreement, it cannot refuse to divulge such information regarding the same plot. The interrogatories and discoveries allowed by the party do not fall into the category of fishing inquiry and are related to the subject matter of the dispute.
Principle Of Judicial Non-Interference Is Fundamental To Both Domestic & International Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Rajender and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1128
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that it is well settled that the principle of judicial non-interference in arbitral proceedings is fundamental to both domestic as well as international commercial arbitration and that the Arbitration Act is self contained code. In this case, a petition under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act) was filed seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Case Title: Corrtech International Pvt Ltd v. Delhi International Arbitration Center and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1129
The Delhi High Court division bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gadela, while hearing an appeal, has upheld the order passed by a single-judge bench wherein it was held that the question of whether an entity was an MSME at the relevant time was to determined by the tribunal under section 16 of A&C Act and not the writ court.
Delhi High Court Allows Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate Despite Post-Expiry Filing U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1134
Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 722/2024
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a petition filed under Section 29A of the Act is maintainable even if it is filed after the expiry of the arbitrator's mandate.
Further, the court observed that this question is still pending before the Supreme Court due to a conflict of decisions of different High Courts, the view taken by Delhi High Court has not been stayed.
Baseless Allegations Against Arbitrators Must Be Dealt With Strictly, Arbitral Tribunals Can Hold Party In Contempt: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Dalmia Family Office Trust & Anr. vs. Getamber Anand & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1137
The Delhi High Court division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma has held that Arbitral Tribunals have the same power as a Civil Court in dealing with contempt against itself as per sections 17(2) and 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that baseless allegations against Arbitrators must be dealt with strictly. It observed that the integrity of arbitration cannot be made fragile by giving room to unsubstantiated or speculative allegations against arbitrators.
Case Title: ICRI CORPORATES PRIVATE LIMITED v. SHOOGLO NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY OMG NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1144
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the arbitral tribunal had correctly applied the IVth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in recalculating the fees separately for the claims and counterclaims.
Additionally, the court held that invoking Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature since no award had been made.
Case Title: M/S Sultan Chand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Kartik Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1148
The Delhi High Court bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that a Defendant (in a civil suit) has the right to withdraw an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and submit to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The court held that when the Defendant (herein, the Respondent) withdrew the application seeking a reference to arbitration, the Plaintiff (herein, the Appellant) had no legal right to oppose the withdrawal of the application and/or insist that the matter be referred to arbitration.
Interference Under Article 227 Is Permissible Only If Order Of Arbitrator Is Completely Perverse And Illegal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DR. RAJAN JAISWAL v. M/S SRL LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1149
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held that judicial interference under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in the arbitral matters should be limited and confined to exceptional cases. In the present case, a petition under article 227 was filed by the petitioner, Dr. Rajan Jaiswal in which the order passed by the Sole Arbitrator on September 24,2024 was challenged. The arbitrator dismissed the application to submit additional documents on the ground that no sufficient reasons were provided to show that why they were not produced earlier. The arbitrator also noted that the documents were in possession of the applicant still they were not submitted earlier.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1151
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if an order of dismissal of the SLP is a non-speaking order and no reasoning has been given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for the same, then review of the order challenged is permissible.
Standard Is Higher For Post-Award Section 9 Relief, Order To Deposit Amount Not Passed In Routine Manner: Delhi HC
Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. M/S IRB AHMEDABAD VADODARA SUPER EXPRESS TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1154
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Hari Shankar held that the standard required to be met by a post-award Section 9 relief is higher than that required by pre-award Section 9 reliefs. In this case, interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was sought to secure the awarded amount.
Stamp Act Not Enacted To Arm Litigant With “Weapon Of Technicality”: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Punita Bhardwaj vs. Rashmi Juneja
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has observed that “the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments and it has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to counter and oppose the case of its adversary.”
Pre-Arbitral Resolution Clauses Are Directory, Not Mandatory, Especially in Cases Requiring Urgent Adjudication: Delhi High Court
Case Title: JHAJHARIA NIRMAN LTD. v. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1158
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that any pre-condition in an arbitration agreement obliging one of the contracting parties to either exhaust the pre-arbitral amicable resolution avenues or to take recourse to Conciliation are directory and not mandatory.
Additionally, the court held that the disputes between the parties require urgent adjudication, it would be wholly untenable to compel the parties to go through the motions of conciliation/DAB proceedings before referring the disputes to arbitration.
Court Under S.9 Of Arbitration Act Can Grant Interim Measure To Protect Property From Being 'Wasted' While Hearing Appeal U/S 37: Delhi High Court
Case Title: - BCC DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD v. BHUPENDER SINGH & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1161
The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the court in the exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, is not obligated to consider the merits or otherwise of the facts as stated by the litigants.
Non-Signatories Bound By Arbitration Agreement If Their Actions Align With Those Of Signatories: Delhi High Court
Case Title: KKH FINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. JONAS HAGGARD & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1163
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if a non-signatory party actively participates in the performance of a contract, and its actions align with those of the other members of the group, it gives the impression that the non-signatory is a “veritable” party to the contract which contains the arbitration agreement. Based on this impression, the other party may reasonably assume that the non-signatory is indeed a veritable party to the contract and bind it to the arbitration agreement.
Arbitration Proceedings Before Improperly Constituted Arbitral Tribunal Are Non-Est: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. M.V. OMNI PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1164
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held where the appointment procedure is invalid, any proceedings before an improperly constituted arbitral tribunal are non-est. Also, this would not prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the act.
Additionally, the court held that whether a particular claim is precluded from arbitration on account of being an excepted matter should be decided by a duly constituted arbitral tribunal.
Jurisdiction Under Articles 226/227 Of Constitution Cannot Be Invoked When Order Passed By Arbitral Tribunal Is Procedural: Delhi High Court
Case Title: LALIT MOHAN v. M/S. NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO. FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. (NAFED)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1165
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the question of maintainability of a writ petition in relation to arbitration proceedings is well settled. The jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot be invoked where the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals are procedural in nature.
No Compensation Can Be Awarded As Consequence Of Breach In Absence Of Any Legal Injury: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA v. MS KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1167
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Mr. Prateek Jalan held that no compensation can be awarded as a consequence of breach of a contract, in the absence of any resulting legal injury. Although the extent of loss or damage is not required to be proven, the fact that loss or damage has been suffered must be established, even to claim liquidated damages or penalty.
HC Can Invoke Article 227 To Interfere With Commercial Court's Order If It Suffers From Erroneous Interpretation Of Law: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ms CP Rama Rao Sole Proprietor v. National Highways Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1170
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227, had observed that the interpretation of Section 42 of the A&C Act by the District Judge while returning the Section 34 petition to be filed before the High Court was completely erroneous. The Court exercised the supervisory jurisdiction while setting the impugned order, as the interpretation of Section 42 by the District Judge would have caused irreparable harm to the petitioner.
Case Title: Shamlaji Expressway Private Limited v. National Highways Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1173
The High Court of Delhi of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the scope of review of an interlocutory order is very narrow when the tribunal examines the factual scenario in detail before formulating an opinion in Section 17. The court cannot change the conclusion reached by the tribunal when the same is based on an intricate factual examination of the matter.
Limitation Is Mixed Question Of Fact And Law Required To Be Adjudicated U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HOME AND SOUL PRIVATE LIMITED V. T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1174
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the issue of limitation, raised as a jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 of Arbitration Act, is rarely a pure question of law. More often, it is a mixed question of law and fact. Whether a claim is barred by the law of limitation depends upon the facts that determine the cause of action and the point from which the limitation period is to be computed.
Tribunal Is Master Of Evidence, Findings Cannot Be Scrutinised U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act As If Court Sitting In Appeal: Delhi HC
Case Title: PEC LIMITED v. ADM ASIA PACIFIC TRADING PTE. LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1178
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justices Tara Vitasta Ganju And Vibhu Bakhru held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the master of evidence and a finding of fact arrived at by an arbitrator is on an appreciation of the evidence on record, and is not to be scrutinized under section 37 of Arbitration Act as if the Court was sitting in appeal.
Reduction Of Awarded Interest Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Impermissible: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S STAR SHARES & STOCK BROKERS LTD. V. PRAVEEN GUPTA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1179
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the arbitral tribunal has the discretion to grant pre-award interest and/or post-award interest, on either whole or part of the principal amount. In proceedings under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is impermissible to reduce interest awarded since the same amounts to modification of the Award.
Not Every Legal Mistake Made by Arbitral Tribunal Is Patent Illegality, Scope Limited To Substantive Laws: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that patent illegality applies only to violations of substantive law of India, the Arbitration Act, or the rules applicable to the substance of the dispute. It does not apply to every legal mistake made by the arbitral tribunal.
Additionally, the court held that the scope of a challenge under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated therein.
Enforcement Court U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Can Refuse To Enforce Foreign Award But Cannot Set It Aside: Delhi High Court
Case Title: INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191
The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that the power to set aside a foreign award lies only with the courts at the seat of the arbitration, which exercise primary/supervisory jurisdiction over the matter. Even if grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act can be made out, the Court being the enforcement court and having only secondary jurisdiction over the foreign award cannot set aside the award but may only “refuse” its enforcement.
Case Title: M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192
The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the role of the court under section 9 of the Arbitration Act is to preserve the subject matter of the Arbitration till the arbitral tribunal decides the claims on merits. Whether termination of the agreement was valid or not is not be decided by the court at section 9 stage. Primacy to agreement between the parties has to be given while deciding petition under 9 of Arbitration Act.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
District Courts
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.