Supreme Court Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445 Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July...
Supreme Court
Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates
Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445
Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) called upon the Bar to urge only the legally permissible grounds in the arbitration proceedings carried under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “When members of the bar take up so many grounds in petitions under Section 34, which are not covered by Section 34, there is a tendency to urge all those grounds which are not available in law and waste the Court's time. The time of our Courts is precious, considering the huge pendency. This is happening in a large number of cases. All this makes the arbitral procedure inefficient and unfair. It is high time that the members of the Bar show restraint by incorporating only legally permissible grounds in petitions under Section 34 and the appeals under Section 37.”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.
Case Title – State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 454
The Supreme Court reiterated that if an arbitral award is challenged beyond the three-month limitation, the benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act will not be available. The Court held that the 30-day extension period mentioned in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be included in the "prescribed period" in Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1963.
Case Details: SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KRISH SPINNING
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489
The Supreme Court held that while deciding a Section 11(6) petition for an appointment of an arbitrator, the referral courts must not conduct an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the applicant are time-barred and should leave that question for determination by the arbitrator. The Court said that the referral court should limit its enquiry to examining whether the Section 11(6) application has been filed within the period of limitation of three years or not.Dispute Regarding Full & Final Settlement Of Contract Is Arbitrable : Supreme Court
Case Details: SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KRISH SPINNING
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489
The Supreme Court held that if any dispute arises as to whether a contract has been discharged or not, such a dispute is arbitrable. “Once the contract has been discharged by performance, neither any right to seek performance, nor any obligation to perform remains under it.However, whether there has been a discharge of contract or not is a mixed question of law and fact, and if any dispute arises as to whether a contract has been discharged or not, such a dispute is arbitrable as per the mechanism prescribed under the arbitration agreement contained in the underlying contract.”, the Court said.
Case Title – Elfit Arabia & Anr v. Concept Hotel BARONS Limited & Ors
Citaiton : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 494
The Supreme Court recently observed that initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for cheque dishonour does not constitute continuing cause of action for initiating arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed an arbitration petition seeking the appointment of an arbitrator eleven years after cheques were dishonoured, on the ground that the claims were barred by limitation.
Arbitration | Impermissible For Arbitral Tribunal Or Courts To Grant Interest Upon Interest Under 1940 Act : Supreme Court
Case Details: M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.812 OF 2014
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 558
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an Arbitral Tribunal is not empowered to grant interest upon interest while passing an arbitral award as the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not specifically provide for the grant of interest on interest.
In the light of the above legal provisions and the case law on the subject, it is evident that ordinarily courts are not supposed to grant interest on interest except where it has been specifically provided under the statute or where there is specific stipulation to that effect under the terms and conditions of the contract.
here is no dispute as to the power of the courts to award interest on interest or compound interest in a given case subject to the power conferred under the statutes or under the terms and conditions of the contract but where no such power is conferred ordinarily, the courts do not award interest on interest.”, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal said
Case Details: DLF LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF UNIVERSAL LTD) AND ANR. VERSUS KONCAR GENERATORS AND MOTORS LTD.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 565
In a significant judgment relating to International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court has decided the two important questions on the enforcement of an arbitral award expressed in foreign currency to Indian Currency.
The two questions that appeared for the Court's consideration were:
Firstly, what is the correct and appropriate date to determine the foreign exchange rate for converting the award amount expressed in foreign currency to Indian rupees? Secondly, what would be the date of such conversion, when the award debtor deposits some amount before the court during the pendency of proceedings challenging the award?
Duty Of Every Arbitral Tribunal & Court To Examine What The Contract Provides : Supreme Court
Case Title– Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 613
The Supreme Court recently emphasised that the courts and arbitral tribunals have the duty to examine the contract clauses in proceedings concerning arbitration.
While upholding Calcutta High Court's decision to set aside the arbitrator's decision to award the amount for loss due to idle machinery and labour despite it being prohibited under the contract, the Court said :
“In fact, High Court did what the Arbitrator should have done. Examine what the contract provides. This is not even a matter of interpretation. It is the duty of every Arbitral Tribunal and Court alike and without exception, for contract is the foundation of the legal relationship…The Arbitrator did not even refer to the contractual provisions and the District Court dismissed the objections under Section 34 with a standard phrase as extracted hereinabove.”
Courts At Referral Stage Must Not Enter Into Contested Questions Involving Complex Facts : Supreme Court
Case Title: COX & KINGS LTD. VERSUS SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 38 OF 2020
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 676
The Supreme Court on Monday (Sep.9) reiterated that once there exists a valid arbitration agreement, than it would not be justifiable for the referral courts at the referral stage to venture into contested questions involving complex facts.
Emphasizing upon the doctrine of competence-competence enshrined under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), the Court said that the referral courts while deciding the petition for an appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act shall restrict its inquiry on whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement or not, and it would be impermissible for the referral courts to led the detailed inquiry into contested questions involving complex facts.
Application To Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award Maintainable Even After Expiry Of Period Under S.29A(4) : Supreme Court
Case Title: ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED, SLP(C) No. 023320 - / 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 693
In an important ruling concerning the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court today held that an application for extending the time for passing of an arbitral award can be filed even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.
“we hold that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan said.
View That Delay Beyond 120 Days For S.37 Appeals Can't Be Condoned May Require Reconsideration: Supreme Court
Case : M/S SAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.
Case No: SLP(c) No. 21111/2024
The Supreme Court has observed that the view expressed in an earlier judgment that delay beyond the period of 120 days in preferring an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be condoned may require reconsideration.
The Court observed that in view of Section 43 of the Act, the above-said view might require reconsideration. As per Section 43, the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Non-Signatory Party's Conduct And Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court
Case Title: AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS. VERSUS JYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 727
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement is not necessarily non-binding on a non-signatory party. Such party, though not a signatory, may have intended to be bound through its conduct or relationship with the signatory parties. A referral court must determine the issue from a prima facie perspective; although, ultimately, it is the arbitral tribunal which shall decide the same based on evidence.
Mere Violation Of Law Won't Make Arbitral Award Invalid, Fundamental Policy Of Law Must Be Violated : Supreme Court
Case Title – OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt Ltd. & Anr.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 738
The Supreme Court recently explained the scope for judicial interference in arbitral awards under section 34 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of violation of public policy, highlighting that it is very limited, particularly after the 2015 amendment.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra observed that mere violation of law is not enough to interfere with an award, but it must conflict with the most fundamental aspects of public policy, justice.
Case Title: PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS M/S SANMAN RICE MILLS & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 754
The Supreme Court today (Sep. 27) observed that unless the arbitral award suffers from the illegality mentioned under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), no award can be interfered with or set aside by the Appellate Courts under Section 37 of the Act.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal observed that the award cannot be set aside merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement, the bench added.
Judge Hearing Sec.34 Application Must Apply Mind To Grounds Of Challenge: Supreme Court
Case Details : KALANITHI MARAN Versus AJAY SINGH AND ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 520
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 26) stressed fon the need for High Courts to ensure that orders dealing with challenges to arbitral awards precisely reflect adequate application of judicial mind on the merits of the case.
The Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the order of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court which has set aside the Single Bench order upholding the arbitral award of Rs. 270 crore against cash-strapped SpiceJet and its chairman, Ajay Singh. The impugned order was challenged by Kalinithi Maran in whose favor the award stood.
High Courts:
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: State Of U.P. And Others vs. M/S Harish Chandra India Limited 2024
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 418
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Principal Secretary (Law), Uttar Pradesh to take steps to avoid delays in filing arbitration appeals beyond statutory limitations by the State Government and submit a report on the actions taken in this regard within 6 months.
Case Title: Savitri Devi v. Union of India and others
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430
Elucidating on the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Ors (2019), the Allahabad High Court has held that “retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos.” For context, in Tarsem Singh (supra), the Apex Court held that the provisions regarding solatium and interest provided in the Land Acquisition Act would apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. The court also held that this ruling of the Supreme Court shall apply to all pending cases.
Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Part Of Award Dealing With Non-Arbitrable Dispute
Case Title: M/S Shyam Lalit Dubey And Another vs. Union Of India Thru. Ganeral Manager Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 446
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes regarding works undertaken by party independent of the contract which contains the arbitration agreement cannot be determined under such arbitration agreement.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held, “wherein some extra work etc. pertaining to the same contract has been undertaken may form part of the arbitrable dispute, however, in an arbitral dispute with reference to quantum meruit or Section 70 of the Act, 1872, for a work undertaken which is wholly independent of the contract containing the arbitration clause, the same cannot become an arbitral dispute.”
Case Title: Sanjit Singh Salwan And 4 Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan And 2 Others
Case No: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 356 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes relating to public trusts which are enlisted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that Section 89 of CPC which provides for settlement of disputes outside Court does not override Section 92 as Section 92 is a specific provision dealing with disputes regarding Trusts.
Receipt Of Arbitral Award By Party A Sine Qua Non For Limitation U/S 34(3) To Begin, General Clauses Act Does Not Apply: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Madan Pal Singh And 2 Others v. M/S Ambika Installments Limited And Another
Case No. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 8 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has held that receipt of the award by the party is a sine qua non for limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to begin and definition of “service by post” under Section 27 of the General Clauses does not apply.
The Court observed that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act which defined service by post in a Central Legislation if the words 'serve' or either of the expressions 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used to mean that service is deemed to be effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. It was, thus, held that this definition is not applicable to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act as it uses the phrase 'receipt of award by the party'.
Bombay High Court
Case title: Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited vs. Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta & Ors. (OS-COMAP-90-2020 and COMAP-91-2020)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 342
The Bombay High Court set-aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as the Arbitrator relied on a non-executed agreement for arriving at the decision. The Court stated that it can annul an arbitral award under Section 34 if the arbitrator adopted a non-judicial approach. The Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresa were considering a commercial appeal filed by the appellant against Bottom of Forma Single Judge Bench's decision to set aside the Arbitral Award under Section 34 of A&C Act.
Individual Members Of Society Can't Be Considered Signatories To The Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shankar Vithoba Desai And Ors Vs Gauri Associates And Anr
Case Number: COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L.) NO. 21070 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that individual members of the Society cannot be considered signatories to the arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, as they do not individually participate in its formation or execution of arbitration clause.
Courts Can't Constantly Interfere And Micro-Manage Arbitral Proceedings: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ambrish H. Soni vs Mr Chetan Narendra Dhakan & Ors.
Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 100 OF 2024 with COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 33385 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that the court cannot constantly interfere with and micromanage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals. The bench held that the scope of judicial interference under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act is limited in nature.
Doctrine Of Separability; Arbitration Agreement Survives Termination Of Main Contract: Bombay High Court
Case Title: EBIX Cash Pvt. Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.6707 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. G. Avachat and Justice Neeraj P. Dhote has held that an arbitration agreement survives the termination of the main contract facilitating the resolution of disputes arising under or in connection with the contract. Therefore, the bench dismissed a writ petition noting that the dispute was arbitral and fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause.
Which Court Can Extend Arbitration Deadlines? Bombay High Court Provides Clarification
Case Title: Sheela Chowgule vs Vijay V. Chowgule and ors
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 88 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes has held that when the High Court constitutes an arbitral tribunal, the High Court holds the jurisdiction to extend the time for completing the arbitration process.
Further, the bench clarified that if the tribunal was constituted through an agreement between the parties, the application for extending time can be addressed by the principal civil court with original jurisdiction, which includes both the district court and the High Court.
Personal Hearings Not Always Necessary For Arbitrator Appointment If Pleadings Are Complete: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Universal Builders In the matter between : Vascon Engineers Limited Versus Universal Builders
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 23757 OF 2024 IN COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L.) NO. 17767 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that while personal hearings for all parties can be beneficial in proceedings to enforce the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6), it is not always necessary.
The bench held that when an arbitration agreement is clearly established in the pleadings and the dispute is not evidently stale or time-barred, it is unnecessary to delay the consideration of an application under Section 11. It noted that if the pleadings are complete and all relevant issues are adequately documented, the application should be considered without requiring additional personal hearings.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: M/S. B.B.M. Enterprises Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Case Number: AP/535/2022
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that it is completely beyond the domain of the Chief Justice and/or his designate, sitting in jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate even prima facie on the merits of an arguable issue involved in the matter, which would fall categorically within the domain of adjudication by the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Shalibhadra Cottrade Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
Case Number: Execution Case No. 193 2019
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even a unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, without any further allegation of bias under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, renders the Arbitrator ineligible. The bench held that in addition to the grounds specifically mentioned in Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule unilateral appointment of Arbitrator by one of the parties itself has also been brought under the purview of diqualification by ineligibility.
Case Title: M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd Vs Bridge and Roof Co India Ltd
Case Number: AP-COM No. 77 of 2024 and AP No. 407 of 2022
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has struck part of the arbitration clause as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The clause prevented the subcontractor from participating in arbitration proceedings despite having to bear the expenses for its claims. Further, it allowed the Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) to unilaterally decide whether a dispute could be referred to arbitration, thus depriving the subcontractor of an independent right to raise disputes.
2063 Crore Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court Directs West Bengal Government, WBIDC To Pay Amount
Case Title: Government of West Bengal & Anr. Versus Essex Development Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.
Case Number: A.P. (COM) 28 of 2023 with IA No. G.A. (COM) 1 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Krishna Rao has rejected the petition made under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the West Bengal Government and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation claiming fraud in making of the arbitral award. The bench noted that the arbitral tribunal arrived upon the findings after considering the materials placed before it and the submissions made by the respective parties.
Case Title: K2V2 Hospitality Llp Vs Limton Electro Optics Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
Case Number: AP/472/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held allowed composite reference of two companies to arbitration noting that the two arbitration agreement refer to the self-same demised property. Moreover, it noted that both the agreements were entered into by the same proposed lessee with two co-owners of the self-same property. The bench held that: “if two different references were to be made, there would be ample scope of conflict of decision pertaining to the self-same subject matter between the co-owners of the self-same property.”
Case Title: Future Market Networks Ltd. Vs Laxmi Pat Surana & Anr
Case Number: AP-COM/135/2024 (Old Case No. AP/698/2016)
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta has held that the Supreme Court's observations regarding the interpretation of "three months" in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as 90 days in various cases were not the ratio decidendi but obiter dicta. The bench held that the period of limitation must be computed based on calendar months, therefore, the period of limitation in Section 34(3) would be three months excluding the date of receipt of the arbitral award.Invocation of Arbitration Beyond Stipulated Period In Clause Does Not Frustrate Parties' Intent To Arbitrate: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Incoda Vs The General Manager, Metro Railway And Anr.
Case Number: AP/611/2022
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the invocation of arbitration after the period defined in the arbitration clause doesn't frustrate the intention of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration.
The bench held that the outer limit stipulated in the arbitration clause for invocation of arbitration if failed by the claimant, does not constitute a waiver or a deliberate relinquishment of the claim by the claimant.
Arbitral Award In Violation Of Contractual Bar Is Patently Illegal: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Union Of India Vs M/S J K Enterprise
Case Number: AP/105/2021 IA NO: GA/1/2021, GA/2/2021
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an arbitral award in violation of a bar contained in the contract is beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The bench held that such an award categorically vitiated under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as by patent illegality as envisaged in Sub-section (2-A) of Section 34.
Single Judge Of Commercial Division Has Jurisdiction Over Original Applications In International Commercial Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Uphealth Holdings Inc Vs Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd And Ors and Connected Matters
Case Number: AP-COM/490/2024 IA NO: GA-COM/1/2024, GA-COM /8/2024 and Connected Matters
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that original applications related to International Commercial Arbitration are to be entertained by the Single Judge of the Commercial Division.
The High Court held that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 defines the Commercial Division and the Commercial Appellate Division distinctly. The Commercial Division, comprised of a Single Judge as per Section 4(1), handles original applications and appeals arising from International Commercial Arbitration. In contrast, the Commercial Appellate Division, as defined in Section 5(1), consists of one or more Division Benches and deals with appeals arising from decisions made by the Commercial Division.
LLP And Its Individual Partners Can't Raise Same Issue By Separate Appeals U/s 37 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Gaurav Churiwal vs Concrete Developers LLP and Ors.
Case No.: EC/283/2023
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Battacharyya held that an LLP and its partners cannot file separate appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by citing the principle of 'separate legal entity'. It was held that the principle of res judicata would apply to prevent the individual partners from raising the same issue under Section 37, if the previous appeal filed in the name of the LLP was dismissed.
'Rohan Builders' Not Binding Precedent, Court Empowered To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Even If Section 29-A Petition Filed After Termination: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs M.D. Creations And Ors.
Case Number: AP/37/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court is empowered the court is empowered to extend an arbitrator's mandate even if a petition under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is filed after the termination of the mandate. Justice Bhattacharyya clarified that the absence of negative expressions in Section 29-A, which are present in other statutes to enforce strict timelines, indicates legislative intent to allow judicial discretion in extending mandates.
Dismissal Of First Execution Application On Default Ground Does Not Bar Fresh Petition: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Jaymony Debnath And Ors.
Case Number: EC/8/2022
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held mere dismissal of the first execution application on the ground of default does not prevent the award-holder/decree-holder from filing a fresh execution petition.
The High Court held that the provisions of Rules 105 and 106 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not preclude the award-holder/decree-holder from filing a fresh execution case on the same cause of action after a dismissal for default. Unlike Order 9, there is no specific bar in Order 21 regarding execution cases. The bench noted that even Rule 4 of Order 9 allows for a fresh suit on the same cause of action if the previous suit was dismissed for default without the parties' presence.
Arbitrator's Reliance On Unverified Evidence Violates Fundamental Policy Of India: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs M/S. Sarada Rani Enterprises
Case Number: A.P. No. 392 of 2012
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that evidence which does not qualify as pleadings supported by due verification or affidavit cannot be equated with proof of a claim. It held that the arbitrator's reliance on such evidence was contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
The bench further held that the arbitrator was not in a situation where an exact figure cannot be determined, and which would require a reasonable guesswork by the tribunal.
Arbitrator's Award For Compensation For Excess Work And Business Loss Without Sufficient Evidence Is Perverse, Contrary To Fundamental Policy: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The State Of West Bengal Vs Bijan Behari Chowdhury
Case Number: AP/224/2009
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the arbitrator's decision to award compensation to the claimant for excess work and business loss, without sufficient evidence to support these claims, is perverse and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
No Independent Dispute Redressal Institution Recognised By Government In Kolkata, Parties Should Approach Court Under Section 11 For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Bhubaneshwari Seafood Private Limited And Anr. Vs Ugro Capital Limited
Case Number: IA NO. GA-COM/1/2024 In APOT/296/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that SAMA, an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform, is not an independent Dispute Redressal Institution duly recognized by the Government of India in Kolkata. Therefore, the bench held that party should approach the court for the appointment of an arbitrator in view of disagreement.
Commercial Division Of High Court Can Hear Applications And Appeals Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 Filed On Original Side: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: M/S. Siemens Healthcare Private Limited Vs Sun Hospital And Ors.
Case Number: IA NO. GA/1/2024 and connected matter
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even if an application or appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to a commercial dispute is filed on the Original Side of the High Court, the same can be heard and disposed by the Commercial Division of the High Court.
Grounds For Challenging Arbitral Awards Narrower Under 1940 Act Compared To 1996 Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: State of West Bengal Vs Sambhu Nath Ghosh and another
Case Number: A.P. No. 654 of 2011
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the grounds for challenging an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act of 1940 are more limited compared to those under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.
The High Court considered the grounds enumerated under Section 34 of the 1996 Act which allow for a challenge if a party was incapacitated, if the arbitration agreement was invalid, if the applicant was not given proper notice of the Arbitrator's appointment, if the award dealt with matters beyond the arbitration agreement, or if the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal or the procedure was not in accordance with the agreement.
Government Entities Must Also Be Viewed Equally In Delay Condonation Applications Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs Civcon Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: APOT/75/2024 IA NO: GA-COM/1/2024, GA-COM/2/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that a government entity should also be seen from an egalitarian perspective while considering application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that while government agencies are not granted undue favor as litigants, there should also be no undue bias against them.
Section 34 Challenge Unwarranted If Arbitrator's Judgment Is Well-Reasoned And Based On Evidence: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation Vs BLA Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: AP-COM No. 231 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if an Arbitrator's judgment is well-reasoned and backed by substantial evidence, there are no grounds to challenge it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Sajarul Rahaman And Anr vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Anr and Connected Matters
Case Number: AP-COM/304/2024 and connected matters
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the principal application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award, falls under Entry No. 2(c) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. This entry is the residuary provision that prescribes a court fee of Rs. 120 for original applications before the High Court, where no other specific provision in Schedule II applies.
Applicants Seeking Pandemic Relaxation For Limitation Under Section 34 Petition Cannot Simultaneously Claim IBC Moratorium Protection: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Marg Limited Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Connected Matters
Case Number: AP-COM/398/2024 and connected matters
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC.
The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic initially prevented it from filing the application on time.
Case Title: Kakali Khasnobis Vs Mrs Reeta Paul And Anr.
Case Number: AP-COM/701/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21.
The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is distinct from a situation under Section 11(5), where prior notice is necessary only for the appointment of an arbitrator, not for the initiation of the proceeding itself.
Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Justified If Applicant's Rights Are Not Protected From Third Parties: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Case Number: AP-COM/608/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous.
Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ranajit Guha Roy and Anr. vs Sankar Kumar Halder
Case Number: AP/861/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that allegations of a party's signature on an arbitration agreement being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation are matters that can be decided by the arbitrator and can't be resolved by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench further observed that the arbitral tribunal, similar to a civil court, has the authority to appoint experts when complex issues, such as those involving fraud or misrepresentation, require expert opinion.
The Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Re-interpret Contracts While Examining Patent Illegality : Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd vs SRMB Srijan Ltd
Case Number: EC/80/2023 [GA/2/2023]; AP-COM/281/2024 [Old No: AP/833/2022]; IA NO: GA/2/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence under the guise of patent illegality, as per the proviso to Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It remarked that the Court cannot be sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's decision and cannot re-interpret the contract differently from the Tribunal without evidence of patent illegality.
Case Title: Baid Power Services Private Limited vs The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited
Case Number: EC/5/2024, AP/757/2023, AP/758/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the time spent in a writ petition on the same cause of action can be excluded from the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitration Clause In Original Lease Deed Incorporated Into Deed Of Assignment When Deeds Are Interconnected And Consistent: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Tata Communications Limited Vs Rudrapriya Constructions LLP and Anr.
Case Number: AP/77/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment. The bench held that interrelationship was not merely superficial but indicative of a deliberate and mutual intent between the parties to incorporate certain terms from the initial lease deed into the new agreement.
Disputes Exceeding Rent Control Act Threshold Are Arbitrable If Lease Agreement Includes Arbitration Clause: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Tapan Kumar Samaddar Vs Sagar Jagdish Daryani And Anr.
Case Number: AP/163/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that when the total monthly payable amount surpasses the threshold for invoking the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the dispute becomes subject to arbitration if the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause.
Composite Reference Can't Be Made Of Disparate Causes Of Action: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Secretary Ganaudyog Bazar Unnayan and Service Co-operative Society Limited vs Iris Health Services Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/716/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that composite reference to an Arbitral Tribunal cannot be made for disparate causes of action in different agreements with different parties as it contravenes the principles of privity, confidentiality, and party autonomy.
Case Title: Gita Refractories Pvt Ltd Vs Tuaman Engineering Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/707/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that Section 18 of the MSME Act does not create any substantive rights or liabilities but simply offers an alternative method for resolving disputes outside of court proceedings.
The bench held that if a party involved in a dispute chooses to pursue arbitration independently under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, the MSME Act does not restrict the claimant from doing so.
Compliance With Pre-Arbitration Formalities Not Mandatory; Can Be Waived By Consensus: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Jayashree Electromech Private Limited v. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited
Case Number: AP-COM No. 751 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that compliance of the pre-arbitration stages can be waived by consensus. The court observed that forcing the petitioner back to the rigmarole of pre-arbitration formalities would be an unnecessary and futile exercise.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Rs. 780 Crore Arbitration Award In Favour Of Reliance Infrastructure, Refuses Pre Award Interest
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation vs. Reliance Infrastructure Limited
Case Numbers: APO 203 of 2023 with AP 40 of 2020 & APO 204 of 2023 with AP 40 of 2020
The Calcutta High Court division bench, comprising Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, has upheld the arbitral award amounting to Rs 780 crore in favour of Reliance Infrastructure Limited, with the exception of relief on pre-award interest and reduction in the rate of interest on bank guarantee. The court observed that the grant of pre-award interest was patently illegal, thereby, setting aside the interest awarded for the period prior to the award date.
Case Title: Growth Techno Projects Limited Vs Ishwar Industries Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 764
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held the time period starting from the filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act till the amendment to the Arbitration Act in 2015, stands excluded from the counting of the limitation period for the enforcement of the arbitral award.
Arbitration Clauses Require Explicit Reference In Subsequent Agreements: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Deepa Chawla Vs Raheja Developers Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 772
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that for an arbitration clause to be enforceable in subsequent agreements, it must be explicitly referenced within those agreements. The bench noted that the subsequent agreement in the dispute contained a specific exclusion of the arbitration clause.
Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement Invalidated By Subsequent Verbal Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mukesh Khurana Vs Rahul Chaudhary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 773
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the arbitration clause in a lease agreement ceases to exist if the lease terminates and a new verbal tenancy agreement is established.
Disputes Related To Lock-In Periods In Employment Contracts Are Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Lily Packers Private Limited Vs Vaishnavi Vijay Umak and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 777
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court held that the three-year lock-in period did not constitute an unreasonable curtailment of the employees' right to employment and did not violate any fundamental rights. It noted that such clauses are typically negotiated voluntarily and entered into with mutual consent.
Case Title: GJ (JV) Comprising of M/S Godara Construction Company M/S Jandu Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 778
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that panel comprising of serving or retired officers of Railways not only restricted the party's choice but also compelled it to choose its nominee from amongst four names suggested by the Railways.
The bench noted that such a panel is not in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV).
Case Title: Murari Lal Agarwal Vs Kmc Construction Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 780
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in a 'two-contract case', a specific reference to the arbitration clause in an earlier contract is necessary for its incorporation into the main contract between the parties.
A 'two-contract case' refers to a situation where there are two separate contracts involved and the parties seek to incorporate terms, including an arbitration clause, from one contract into another.
Case Title: M/S Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt Ltd Vs M/S Sel Manufacturing Co Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 781
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that when parties engage in actions based on invoices containing arbitration clauses, demonstrating mutual acceptance, an arbitration agreement may be inferred directly from those invoices.
Case Title: Nafees Ahmed Vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 782
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that coercion, or its absence in a dispute is a complex question, purely of fact, which has necessarily to be examined by the arbitral tribunal. The bench held that with the introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the jurisdiction of the referral court is now circumscribed.
Case Title: Reliance Communications Limited Vs Unique Identification Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 784
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has dismissed a petition filed by Reliance Communications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the arbitrator correctly divided the total number of call seconds by 60 to determine the number of call minutes. The bench noted that the company is not entitled to a whole minute if the call lasted only part of a minute.
Case Title: Mukesh Udeshi vs Jindal Steel Power Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 788
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that only parties to an arbitration agreement can challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was further held that 3rd-party beneficiaries of domain names in India, who are impacted by the arbitral award, lack the standing to challenge the award.
Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner Of Police Vs Score Information Technologies Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 789
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that the arbitral tribunal may exercise its power to award compensation for breach if a Contract has become incapable of specific performance. Further, the bench held that the interpretation of a contract is a matter for an arbitrator to determine. It held that even if such interpretation gives rise to an erroneous application of the law, the courts will generally not interfere unless the error is palpably perverse or illegal and goes to the root of the matter.
Disobedience Of Interim Measures Due To Insolvency Proceedings Is Not Contempt: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mr.Rajan Chadha & Anr Vs Mr.Sanjay Arora & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 790
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has held that disobedience of interim measures granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to insolvency proceedings does not warrant contempt charges.
The bench held that if the disobedience results from circumstances beyond the contemnor's control, such as financial constraints or ongoing disputes that impact compliance, contempt charges are not justified.
Case Title: Welspun Enterprises Ltd Vs Kasthuri Infra Projects Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 79
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is in place, ordinarily a court should refrain from dealing with the matter even for the purposes of passing interlocutory orders unless the order is demonstrably one which cannot await the application of mind by the Arbitral Tribunal. The bench held that: “. If party is able to convince the Court that by the time the application is taken up by the Arbitral Tribunal, the prejudice that may result would be irreparable, it may be justified for the Court to take up the matter even when the Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of the disputes.”
Case Title: Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Deepak And Co
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 799
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that findings made by an arbitrator which are consistent with the documentary evidence and admissions made during cross-examination are reasonable and not perverse.
The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Associate Builders v. DDA where the Supreme Court held that the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act do not encompass the merits of the award. Instead, they are limited to issues such as public policy and procedural fairness. The Supreme Court highlighted that the principle of judicial approach requires decisions to be fair, reasonable, and objective. Arbitrary or whimsical decisions are not fair or reasonable.
Case Title: Assets Care And Reconstruction Enterprise Limited Vs Domus Greens Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 803
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that a third party, whose rights for a registered charge are affected by an arbitral award, can challenge such award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 11(6) Petition Not Maintainable Without Prior Section 21 Notice In Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd Vs Manav Sethi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 805
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that a Section 11(6) petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable unless it is preceded in the first instance by a Section 21 notice.
The bench noted that the notice serves the crucial purpose of informing the opposing party about the claims asserted, allowing for potential acceptance, clarification of claims, assertion of defenses, or identification of counter-claims.
Intention To Arbitrate Must Be Assessed Holistically In Transactions Involving Interlinked Agreements, Even If Some Agreements Lack Explicit Arbitration Clauses: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Nishesh Ranjan and Anr. vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 807
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that in a composite transaction involving multiple interlinked agreements, courts should assess the intention to arbitrate holistically and refer disputes to arbitration even if some agreements lack explicit arbitration clauses.
Decree Holder Not Entitled To Interest For Period Between Deposit of amount and its Release : Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Ramacivil India Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 808
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the Decree Holder is not entitled to interest on the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor for the period between the date of deposit and the date of release permitted by the court.
The bench held that the entitlement to interest does not extend to the period between the deposit and the withdrawal application if the deposit was unconditional and available for withdrawal without any impediment.
'Subsequent Shareholders' Do Not Qualify As 'Association Or Body of Individuals' Under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Ktc India Pvt. Ltd Vs Randhir Brar & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 809
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that “subsequent shareholders,” each holding a specific number of shares and having the right to exit the company under defined conditions while undertaking individual rights and obligations, do not qualify as an "association or body of individuals" under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the High Court classified the arbitration as “international commercial arbitration” because one of the shareholders was a national and habitual resident of a country outside India.
Arbitrator Must Determine Validity Of Coercion Claims In Settlement Agreements, Termination Of Arbitration Improper: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Gae Projects (P) Ltd. Vs Ge T&D India Ltd. (Formerly Alstom T&D India Ltd.)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 810
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that claims of coercion or economic duress in a settlement agreement require examination by an arbitrator to determine their validity. The bench held that the Arbitrator's summary dismissal of the claimant's plea and the termination of arbitration proceedings without a trial were improper.
Act of God Does Not Justify Retention Of Performance Bank Guarantee Without Suffering Legal Injury: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd Vs Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 818
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal has held that a force majeure event specifically an Act of God beyond the control of the concerned party doesn't require retention of performance bank guarantee. The bench held that a party cannot retain monies recovered through encashment of Performance Bank Guarantee on account of liquidated damages without having averred that it had suffered a legal injury on account of the delay in commissioning, which was only a couple of hours.
Disputed Contract, Can't Be Challenged U/s 34 Of Arbitration Act Unless finding are Unreasonable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Noble Chartering Inc. vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 819
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that the interpretation of a disputed contract falls within the arbitral tribunal's domain and is not subject to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless the interpretation is unreasonable.
Courts Can't Undertake Independent Assessment Of Award In Appeal U/s 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s BPL Limited vs M/s Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 820
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma reiterated that while entertaining an arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the role of a court is limited to ascertaining whether the exercise of power under Section 34 has exceeded the scope of the provision. In such cases, the High Court held that courts cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award.
Misunderstanding Of Basic Contractual Framework Vitiates Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title:Trans Engineers India Private Limited Vs Otsuka Chemicals (India) Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 830
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that an award with misreading/misunderstanding of the basic contractual framework vitiates it at its root and makes it vulnerable to challenge under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Non-Signatories Can Be Included In Arbitration Beyond Group Company Ties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rbcl Piletech Infra Vs Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held the inclusion of a non-signatory in arbitral proceedings is not solely dependent on the non-signatory being part of the same group of companies as the signatory.
The bench further clarified that a non-signatory can be included in arbitration if there is a contractual relationship that makes the non-signatory partially or wholly responsible for obligations towards the claimants.
Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Can't Be Used To Seek Re-Litigation: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Krishan Kumar & Anr Vs Shakuntla Agency Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 854
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a “second bite at the arbitral cherry”. The bench further held that under Section 34 the court cannot enter into a re-appreciation of facts.
Case Title: Sharad Bhansali & Anr. Vs Mukesh Aggarwal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 855
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C.Hari Shankar has held that Article 23A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act applicable in Delhi covers Agreement to Sell to which Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) applies.
Section 53A of the TPA is designed to protect a transferee who has part performed a contract for the transfer of immovable property. To avail of this protection, the transferee must demonstrate that the contract was in writing, signed by or on behalf of the transferor, that possession of the property was taken by the transferee, that some act was done in furtherance of the contract, and that the transferee has either performed or is willing to perform their part of the contract.
Arbitrators Must Separately Calculate Fees For Claims And Counterclaims In Ad Hoc Arbitration: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited Vs Union Of India Through Executive Engineer Cpwd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 858
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has set aside computration of fee by an arbitration on the basis decision in Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd which was later set aside in ONGC Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723.
The bench held that in ad hoc arbitration, the arbitrator must calculate fees separately for claims and counterclaims, with the ceiling limit in the Fourth Schedule applied separately to each.
Case Title: M/S Plus91 Security Solutions Vs Nec Corporation India Private Limited (Erstwhile Nec Technologies Private Limited)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 869
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that an Arbitral Tribunal's decision to award damages for loss of profit is vitiated by patent illegality if it contradicts the express terms of the agreement between the parties.
The bench held that:
“It is essential to maintain the bargain entered into between the parties. The parties agreed that they would not be liable for (i) any indirect, special, or consequential loss or damage; (ii) any loss or damages due to loss of goodwill; and, (iii) loss of revenue or profit arising from or in connection with the MOU. f the MOU is accepted as a binding agreement, this is clearly a part of the bargain struck by the parties. Disregarding the said stipulation would in effect amount to rewriting the bargain between the parties.”
Case Title:Maruti Traders vs Itron India Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 89/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C Hari Shankar has held that commerce is devoid of equity. The bench held that commercial transactions are driven by a harsh reality, and the principle of universal brotherhood does not extend to commercial dealings. In these transactions, there is no obligation on the arbitrator for fairness, kindness, or equity, and no court can mandate such qualities.
The bench noted that while there might be a limited expectation of fairness in transactions involving the Government, the contract's terms remain paramount. In commercial disputes, relief cannot be granted based on principles of equity and fairness; it must be sought within the framework of the Contract Act or relevant statutes.
Case Title: Hindustan Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maa Sheetla Ventures Limited
Case Number: W.P.(C) 10561/2024, CM APPL. 43391-43392/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has held that the scope of judicial interference under Article 226 is limited when challenging an Arbitral Tribunal's order concerning the conduct of arbitration proceedings.
The bench held that a writ petition cannot be entertained against every interlocutory order related to case management. Such orders fall within the Arbitral Tribunal's discretion and authority which includes decisions on matters like summoning witnesses and producing documents.
Non-Response Can't Be Presumed As Consent For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S S. K. BUILDERS v. M/S CLS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 898
The Delhi High Court bench of J. C.Hari Shankar has held that consent requires consensus ad idem and there must be positive consent present from the petitioner side with respect to the appointment of an arbitrator. If such consent is absent, the appointment becomes unilateral and ex facie illegal.
Case Title: Index Hospitality Limited Vs Contitel Hotels And Resorts Pvt Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 909
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharmab has held that breaches of undertakings given before a Court, or an Arbitral Tribunal should not be pursued under the Contempt of Courts Act. Instead, the High Court held that proper course of action is to seek enforcement of the arbitral award.
Court Has Power To Grant Anti-Enforcement Injunction Against Proceedings In Foreign Court Which Threaten Arbitral Process Initiated In India: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Honasa Consumer Limited Vs Rsm General Trading Llc
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 922
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that when proceedings in a foreign court, or a decree issued by a foreign court, threaten the arbitral process that may be initiated in India, the court has the authority under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to restrain the party from continuing with the foreign proceedings or enforcing the potentially prejudicial decree.
Section 29A Time Limit Does Not Apply To Arbitral Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Chinar Steel Industries Vs Ircon International Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 924
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that time limit under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable to arbitral proceedings “commenced” as per Section 21 prior to 2015 amendment.
The bench held the “commencement” of proceedings is the relevant yardstick for determining applicability of the Section 29A after 2015 amendment and is different from the concept of “entering upon the reference” referred to in Section 29A before the 2015 amendment.
Court's Role Under Section 11(5) Or 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Limited To Verifying Arbitration Agreement And Timely Filing: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Raj Kumari Taneja Vs Rajinder Kumar & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 929
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held when a Court exercises jurisdiction under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it has to only ensure the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and to confirm that the petition under these sections has been filed within three years of the service of a Section 21 notice.
Excise Duty Disputes Non-Arbitrable Only When Involving Sovereign Functions Including Determination Of Tax Rate Or Liability: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs Paramount Communications Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 930
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a dispute regarding excise duty is only non-arbitrable when it involves a sovereign function, such as determining tax liability or the rate at which duty must be paid to revenue authorities. The bench clarified that this issue is separate from the dispute which concerns whether the claimant is obligated to pay the respondent for the goods supplied including excise duty at the rate specified in the invoices.
Allegations Of Fraud And Time-Barred Claims Must Be Addressed By Arbitral Tribunal, Not Court: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Dr. Rahul Bhayana Vs Dr. Rohit Bhayana & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 939
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that issues such as allegations of fraud and claims that the applicant's claims are time-barred must be addressed by the arbitral tribunal rather than the court.
Discovery And Inspection Orders By Arbitral Tribunal Are Not Interim Awards If They Do Not Resolve Disputed Issues: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies Ag Vs Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 944
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that an order by arbitral tribunal addressing applications related to the discovery and inspection of documents does not constitute an interim award if it does not resolve a matter at issue between the parties.
court Acquires Jurisdiction Under Section 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Immediately On Default Of Pre-Arbitral Or Arbitral Procedure: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Bksons Infrastructure Pvt. Lt Vs Managing Director, National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 942
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that court acquires jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 immediately on the default, of either party, in adhering to the pre-arbitral or arbitral procedure envisaged in the contract.
Arbitral Tribunal Is Master of Evidence, Delhi High Court Upholds Award Against Railways
Case Title: Union Of India Vs M/S Parishudh Machines Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 943
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that when an arbitrator delivers an Arbitral Award, the assessment of the quality and quantity of evidence presented to her must be respected, and any reasonable conclusion drawn by the arbitrator based on the facts should be upheld. The bench held that that the Arbitral Tribunal is the master of evidence and a findings of fact arrived at by an arbitrator is on an appreciation of the evidence on record are not to be scrutinised as if the Court was sitting in appeal (referred to State of Jharkhand v. HSS Integrated Sdn)
Case Title: Kunal Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 946
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that it is reasonable for an arbitrator to deny pre-reference and pendente lite interest when the applicant is partially responsible for delays in completing the project.
The bench held that interpreting a contract and determining claims based on that interpretation fall within the arbitral tribunal's authority.
Arbitration Clause Invalid If Contractor Cannot Select Arbitrator From Railway's Panel: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd VS Rail Land Development Authority
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 948
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an arbitration clause is invalid if it does not allow the contractor to select an arbitrator from a panel provided by the Railway. The High Court noted that there was a significant distinction between the clause and the arbitration clause previously considered by the Supreme Court in Central Organization for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV).
Legality Of Arbitrator's Appointment Can't Be Challenged In Petitions For Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Apex Buildsys Ltd. Vs Vadera Interiors And Exteriors and connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 956
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that objections related to the legality of an arbitrator's appointment cannot be raised in a petition seeking an extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
No Denial Of Opportunity When Arbitrator Allowed Claimants To Submit Additional Affidavit Revealed In Respondent's Response-Affidavit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DD Auto Pvt Ltd Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 957
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that there is no denial of opportunity when the arbitrator permitted the claimants to submit an additional affidavit by way of examination-in-chief which came to light for the first time in the response-affidavit filed by the Respondent.
Correspondence Stating Non-Arbitrability Of Dispute Due To Negotiable Instruments Act Proceedings Implies Recognition Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Dhanlaxmi Sales Corporation Vs Boston Scientific India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 958
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that correspondence from a party stating that ongoing proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 barred initiation of arbitration implicitly acknowledged the existence of the arbitration clause.
Administrative Lethargy Of Government Machinery Not Valid Ground For Delay Condonation In Arbitration Appeals: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union Of India Vs Rishabh Constructions Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 959
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that nature of administrative lethargy of the Government machinery is not a satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay in submitting an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
rbitrator's Discussion On Claims And Costs Exceeds Jurisdiction If Not As Per Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ram Chander Aggarwal Vs Ram Kishan Aggarwal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 960
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that if an arbitrator concludes that she was not appointed according to the arbitration clause, then any discussion on the merits of the claims and the award of costs against the Respondents exceeds the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
Arbitral Tribunal Is Final Decision-Maker; Court Interference Only For Perverse Or Implausible Awards: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Delhi Skills Mission Society Vs Samuel Foundation Charitable India Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 964
The Delhi High Court divison bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that Arbitral Tribunal serves as the ultimate decision-maker on all matters. The bench held that interference by the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only warranted if the Tribunal's decision is deemed perverse or implausible.
Order In Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Based On Settlement Is Enforceable As Decree : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Anand Gupta & Anr. Vs M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr. And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 986
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree in accordance with Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Twelve-Month Period For Arbitral Award Begins From Completion Of Pleadings, Not Statement Of Defense: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 988
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when read with Section 29A(4), implies that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates if the tribunal does not issue the award within twelve months of completing the pleadings under Section 23(4).
The bench held that the twelve-month period is to be calculated from the completion of pleadings, not from the date of filing the Statement of Defense (SOD).
Absence Of Monetary Claim In Section 21 Notice Doesn't Negate Existence Of Dispute: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Deepti Gambhir Proprietor Of S P Distributors And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 993
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that due to the broad interpretation of the term "dispute," the court cannot definitively conclude that no dispute exists between the parties, even in the absence of a monetary claim by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitrator Can't Assume Arbitral Seat Without Clear Agreement From Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union Of India Vs Arsh Constructions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 994
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that parties in arbitration can agree to an arbitral seat at a neutral location, different from where the contract was executed, the work was carried out, or the arbitration proceedings were conducted. However, such a decision must first reflect mutual agreement and, secondly, must be documented, either explicitly in writing or recorded by the Arbitrator or the Court in an order.
Non-Compliance With Share Purchase Agreement; Arbitrability Of Dispute Must Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal, Not By Court: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Thriving Farm Builders Pvt Ltd And Anr Vs Sushil Chaudhary And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 995
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that argument claiming the dispute is non-arbitrable due to non-compliance with the Share Purchase Agreement cannot be addressed by the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that such aspects need to be addressed by the arbitral tribunal.
The Arbitral Tribunal May Implead A Non-Signatory To The Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd v. Hero Solar Energy Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 996
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) has held in the affirmative whether the arbitral tribunal may implead a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in the proceedings. Following the ratio in Cox and Kings Ltd v. Sap India Pvt Ltd (Cox and Kings II), it observed that whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement is for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide and not the Section 11 Court.
Mere Arbitration Clause In Invoices Insufficient, Express Or Implicit Acceptance Of Terms Of Invoices Necessary: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mr. Mohammad Eshrar Ahmed Vs M/S Tyshaz Buildmart India Private Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 105/2023, I.A. 22122/2023
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that simply including an arbitration clause in invoices does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement. The High Court held that since the applicant neither expressly nor implicitly accepted the terms of the invoices, it could not be deemed to be bound by any arbitration agreement.
Party Ignores Section 21 Notice; Should Seek Court Intervention, Arbitrator Can't Unilaterally Summon Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Meenakshi Agrawal Vs M/S Rototech
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 998
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that if a party seeking arbitration faces a situation where the opposing party does not respond to a Section 21 notice or refuses to agree to arbitration, the only recourse is to approach the Court under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, depending on the circumstances. The bench held that party cannot unilaterally grant jurisdiction to the arbitrator, even if the arbitrator is already named. Similarly, it held that the arbitrator cannot independently summon the opposing party to attend the arbitration proceedings.
All Arbitration Proceedings Must Be Filed In Court With Jurisdiction Over The Arbitral Seat: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bcc Developers And Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 999
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once the arbitral seat is established, all proceedings, including the initial ones, must be filed only in the court that has jurisdiction over the arbitral seat. The bench held that no other Court is authorized to handle any matters related to the arbitration.
Contempt Proceedings Inappropriate For Resolving Complex Disputed Factual Issues: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Morgan Ventures Limited Vs Nepc India Limited And Other & Ors. And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the contempt proceedings are not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed factual issues such as conducting a detailed accounting analysis to determine the fairness or justification of accounting practices.
Referral Court Under Section 11 Can't Decide The Arbitrability of Non-Notified Claim: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding a Section 11 application, has held that a referral court under Section 11 cannot examine the arbitrability of non-notified claims. After the SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning judgment, the arbitral tribunal will decide on the arbitrability of disputes.
Arbitrator Justified In Treating Loan Admission In Correspondence As Admitted Claim Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shutham Electric Ltd. Vs Vaibhav Raheja & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
The Delhi High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that when a party makes a clear admission of owing a loan in its contemporaneous correspondence, the arbitrator is justified in treating it as an admitted claim under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Case Title: Prime Interglobe Private Limited v. Super Milk Products Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 34 petition, has held that any party can benefit from the second part of Section 34(3) when calculating the limitation period. The statute's language does not specify who should request under Section 33. Therefore, the benefit of calculating the limitation period from the date of disposal of the Section 33 application is available to both parties.
Delhi High Court Stays Arbitral Awards Due To Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator
Case Title: M/s PGL Estatecon Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Jyoti Enterprises
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
The Delhi High Court bench presided by Justice C. Hari Shankar has stayed the execution of two arbitral awards, holding that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent, without court intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act, rendered the arbitration proceedings invalid ab initio.
Case Title: Grand Motors Sale And Services Pvt Ltd v. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that when the seat of the arbitration is contractually fixed, only those Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the seat would have the curial jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Following the dictum in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd, the court held that the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition
Case Title: Poonam Mittal v. Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, has held that Sub-section (6) pertaining to substitute the arbitrator is there to further the purpose of Section 29A.
Case Title: Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal, has held that the right of a party to file a Section 14 petition seeking to terminate the mandate of the tribunal is not curtailed because the party had previously filed a Section 16 application before the tribunal and lost.
Gauhati High Court
Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked In View Of Arbitration Clause Except For Specific Circumstances: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Anupam Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
Case Number: WP(C)/3688/2024
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the presence of an arbitration clause, except under specific circumstances. The bench observed that the Petitioner did not demonstrate a violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or that the proceedings were without jurisdiction.
Gujarat High Court
Petition Under Section 34 Not Maintainable Against Rejection Of Application Under Section 16 By Arbitrator: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University Versus Abhinav Knowledge Services Private Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee has held a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable against the order of rejection of the application under Section 16 challenging challenging the jurisdiction of an arbitrator on the plea of res judicata and bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
Case Title: Prabhudas Jesangbhai Patel Versus Vinodbhai Mohanbhai Togadiya
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 110
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J. C. Doshi has held that whether a party has waived their right to seek arbitration and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court depends on the party's conduct during the suit.
However, the bench held that the legal principle remains that an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be filed before the first statement on the substance of the dispute is submitted.
Gujarat High Court Flags Arbitrator Bias, Confirms Setting Aside Arbitral Award On Grounds Of Patent Illegality
Case Title: Sentinel Properties Private Limited vs. Legal Heir of Deceased Atul Dhirajlal Amin Viral Atulbhai Amin s/o Late Atulbhai Amin
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 135
The Gujarat High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, has held that agreements for the sale of agricultural land to non-agriculturists are invalid under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act unless necessary permissions from the Collector are obtained. The court observed that the agreement, executed through a Power of Attorney, was a contingent contract, conditional on securing this sanction. The bench noted that specific performance could still be decreed. However, if such permissions were not obtained, the contract would be rendered unenforceable. The court also addressed the apprehension of bias of the arbitrator, holding that the arbitrator's prior association with a key stakeholder in the claimant company raised 'justifiable doubts' regarding independence and impartiality.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Kamla Devi vs Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority and another
Case Number: Arbitration Case No.573 of 2024
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Bipin Chander Negi onus is upon the arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to them within the time schedule prescribed in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench noted that criticized an arbitrator appointed by Central Government under the National Highways Act for his callous attitude. The court noted that the arbitrator took upon the task of deciding the arbitration proceedings knowing fully well that if the proceedings are not completed within the time schedule, then unless the same is extended by a Court of Law, the mandate of the Arbitrator shall stands terminated.
Sec 151 CPC Application Not Maintainable When Sect 29A(4) Of Arbitration Act Applies, Incorrect Quote Of Section Not Grounds For Dismissal: HP High Court
Case Title: Kamlu vs Collector Land Acquisition
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 52
The Himachal High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that an application under Section 151 of the CPC is not maintainable when a specific provision exists under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extending the time of arbitration proceedings. However, the bench also held that the application cannot be dismissed solely because it cited Section 151 CPC instead of Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act.
Tossing Award File From One Table To Other By State Not Enough To Condone Delay ; Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: State of H.P. and another vs M/s Mengi Engineering Company
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 54
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that the explanation for the delay in filing objections under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is insufficient to justify condoning the delay if it appears that the file was merely tossed from one table to the other by the State.
Jammu And Kashmir High Court
Case Title: Ramtech Software Private Limited Vs Ut Of J&K And Another
Case Number: Arb P. No.41/2023
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that if a party didn't respond to the demands and requests made by the other party, it can't invoke the part of the arbitration clause that such disputes and differences shall be an endeavoured to be resolved by mutual negotiations as a condition precedent for invoking the arbitration clause.
Disputes Predominantly Civil But Involving Elements Of Criminality Not Automatically Excluded From Arbitration: Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Case Title: M/s Tata Power Solar vs UT of J&K and Ors.
Case Number: Arb P No. 36/2023
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has held that a dispute predominantly civil but involving elements of criminality is not automatically excluded from arbitration.
The bench noted that unless there is a specific allegation of the parties engaging in an agreement amounting to criminal conspiracy, there should be no blanket prohibition on referring such disputes to arbitration.
Any attempt To Modify Award Under Section 34 is not permissible: J&K High Court
Case Title: UT of J&K Vs M/s Hindustan Constructions Co. Limited and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 203
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has set aside a judgment from a subordinate court modifying an arbitral award while underscoring that under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, courts lack the authority to modify arbitral awards and can only either uphold or set aside the awards.
Jharkhand High Court:
Case Title: Tata Steel Utilities and Infrastructure Services Limited vs Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 106
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has held that in Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is required to see whether there is an arbitration clause which as per section 7 should be a document in writing signed by the parties. Furthermore, where the existence of the arbitration agreement is undisputed by the parties involved, the dispute should accordingly be referred to arbitration.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mr. Shyamal Mukherjee Vs Pricewaterhousecoopers Services LLP
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice R. Devdas has held that prior involvement as an arbitrator in a dispute or multiple appointments by one of the parties or its affiliate does not automatically disqualify an individual from serving as an arbitrator in subsequent cases. The crucial factor lies in the arbitrator's ability to demonstrate independence and impartiality in past proceedings.
Ex-Parte Interim Measures Appealable Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act, Courts Must Allow Appeal In Exceptional Cases: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s KLR Group Enterprises vs Madhu HV and Ors.
Case No.: Commercial Appeal No. 56 OF 2024
The Karnataka High Court division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that ex-parte interim measures granted under Section 9 are appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. The High Court held that the nature of ex-parte interim measures is similar to final orders since they conclusively deny the relief sought. However, it held that the interference should be in exceptional cases since the aggrieved party can move to vacate the ex-parte order.
Lis Pendens Principle Applies To Property Acquired During Section 9 Arbitration Proceedings: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that an individual who acquires property that is the subject of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subject to the principle of lis pendens.
The issue before the High Court was whether the transaction was affected by the principle of lis pendens as outlined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Non-Signatories Bound By Arbitration Clause When Purchasing Property From Agreement Parties: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Devtree Corp. Llp. Vs M/s Bhumika North Gardenia
Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2978 OF 2024 (AA)
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement but buys property from someone who is a party to the agreement is still bound by the arbitration clause that applies to their vendors.
The High Court noted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decision in Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited and Another was primarily concerned with whether the phrase "claiming through or under" in Section 8 of the Arbitration Act includes the "Group of Companies" doctrine and whether this doctrine, as previously outlined in Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., constitutes valid law.
Settlement Arising From Contract Containing Arbitration Clause Must Be Resolved Through Arbitration: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S Akshaya Private Limited Vs M/S S P Sai Technologies
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 347
The Karnataka High Court division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that the right to enforce the settlement has to be through arbitration as the alleged settlement is in respect of a transaction arising from the contract which contained an arbitration clause.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arbitral Award Can Be Enforced Anywhere In Country Where Decree Is Executable: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited Versus Mr. Neelambar Singh Patel And Others
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION No. 240 of 2012
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal has held that an award could be enforced through its execution in any location within the country where the decree could be executed. The bench held that it is unnecessary to obtain a transfer of the decree from the Court that had jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.
State Not Part To Agreement Can't File Section 16 Application: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others Versus T.R.G. Industries Private Limited A Company Registered Under The Companies Act 1956 And Others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 12871 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani has held that an arbitration agreement entered into between the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, and a private company does not involve or implicate the State Government in any legal capacity. The bench held that such an agreement is exclusively between the central government ministry and the concerned company, thereby excluding any role or involvement of the State Government. As a result, the bench held that the State Government cannot be considered a party to the arbitration agreement or the related arbitral proceedings.
Madras High Court
Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator & Non Service Of Notice : Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award
Case Title: Vipul Kumar Tulsian and anr vs M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has set aside an arbitral award where the opposite party proceeded with arbitration unilaterally and appointed the Arbitrator without any intimation to the claimants. Further, the claimants neither received notices of hearing nor appeared before the Tribunal, and consequently, the Arbitrator did not afford any opportunity to claimants to contest the matter.
Formal Contract Signature Not Required To Enforce Arbitration Clause If Parties Are Ad Idem: Madras High Court
Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited vs M/s.Texmo Pipes and Products Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court division bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has held that if it is proved that if it is established that the parties are ad idem, a formal contract signature by the other party is not necessary to enforce the arbitration agreement.
Further, the bench held that by acting upon the Purchase Orders, the party implicitly accepted the terms, including the arbitration clause contained in the GCC.
Case Title: The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.KaThe Project Director, National Highways No.45E & 220, National Highways Authority of India vs M.Mallika Begam and anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has held that the administrative reason alone cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 950 days in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that delays attributable to administrative factors, such as changes in project management or internal procedural adjustments, do not constitute valid grounds for extending the limitation period for filing an appeal
Orissa High Court
CPC Provisions Govern Stay Of Execution Proceedings Initiated Under Section 36(1) Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Birla Institute of Management & Technology (BIMTECH), Gothapatna, Bhubaneswar vs M/s. Fiberfill Interiors & Constructions, U.P.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
The Orissa High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra has held that held that since the Arbitration Act is silent on the aspect of filing an application before the executing court to stay the operation of execution proceedings initiated under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, the provisions of the CPC would be followed for this purpose.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Shanker Printing Mills vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others
Case Number: ARB-47-2023 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has held that an arbitration clause in a partnership firm's agreement remains valid if a private limited company has taken over all the firm's assets and liabilities.
The High Court held that this arrangement can be inferred from both the dissolution deed of the partnership firm and in the company's Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association.
Case Title: M/S I Care Consultancy Vs L & T Finance Ltd And Ors
Case Number: ARB-57-2023
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has held that the High Court itself does not qualify as a Civil Court under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Consequently, the High Court held that it has jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, which grants it authority where the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction would have the power to address the issues that are subject to arbitration, if those issues were to be considered in a suit.
Rajasthan High Court
Arbitral Tribunal First To Adjudge Non-Arbitrability Of Dispute And Ground Of Res-Judicata, Courts Can Have Second Look After Award: Rajasthan HC
Title: Dilip Kumar v Dharampal Choudhary & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati at the Rajasthan High Court accepted an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator and observed that the issue of non-arbitrability of a dispute under an arbitration agreement falls under the domain of the arbitral tribunal in the first instance and the courts have the power to only “second look” after passing of the arbitral award.The Court also opined that the question regarding the claim being barred by res judicata does not arise for consideration in proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, and hence, it also needs to be dealt with by the arbitral tribunal only.
Pre-Arb Step(s) Cannot Be Treated As Mandatory If Could Not Be Fructified: Rajasthan High Court
Title: M/S Larsen and Tourbo v Rajasthan Urban Sector Development Project & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal at the Rajasthan High Court opined that where pre-arbitration steps mentioned in the agreement could not be fructified, it could not be held that those were mandatory in nature and in the event of failure of these no arbitration could be initiated. The Court held that it was a well settled principle of law that an arbitration agreement being a commercial one needed to be interpreted in a manner so as to give effect to the intention of the parties of referring a dispute to arbitration, rather than invalidating the same on technicalities.
Case Title: Movie Time Cinemas Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Chetak Cinema
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 263
The Rajasthan High Court bench comprising Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati has held that the invocation of an arbitration clause, which required the Applicant to name an Arbitrator, is valid under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even without naming an arbitrator in the legal notice, as long as the existence of an arbitration agreement is prima facie established. The Court reiterated the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration matters.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/S. Lignite Power Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Totale Global Private Ltd
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.205 of 2023
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy held that the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006 will prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that even if parties have an arbitration agreement, if the seller falls under the purview of the MSMED, it has the right to seek resolution through the designated authority for its claims.
Telangana HC Explains Section 31(7)(A) And (B) Of The A&C Act,1996 In Terms Of Timeframes, Embargo & Discretion
Case Title: The Union Of India, Secbad And 3 Others vs M/S. Suntechno Constructions
Case Number: C.M.A.No.857 OF 2016
The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M. G. Priyadarsini has held the arbitral tribunal has full authority to award interest from the date of the award until the date of payment, regardless of any contrary decision by the parties. If the award is silent on the rate of interest, the award holder is entitled to an interest rate 2% higher than the market rate.
Case Title: Sri Parvez Adi Debara vs M/s. Innovation Builders
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.289 of 2023
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P.Sam Koshy and Justice Sambasivarao Naidu has held the legal heirs of a deceased person who was a party to an arbitration agreement fall under the definition of "legal representative" as specified in Section 2(1)(g) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that it encompasses persons who manage or claim to inherit the deceased's estate.
Invoking Section 8(1) Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996, Formal Application Is Required, Averment In Written Statement Not Enough
Case Title: Yakkanti Adinarayana Reddy vs. Yakkanti Adinarayana Reddy
Case Number:C.R.P.NO.1516 OF 2024
The Telangana High Court has clarified the procedural requirements for invoking arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that a formal application for referring parties to arbitration must be filed before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, typically the written statement in a suit.
Commercial Courts Empowered To Hear Commercial Original Petition Arising From Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Narayana Educational Institutions v. Mrs Paruchuri Janaki and Anr.
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 2243 of 2024
The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarsini has held that commercial courts are competent courts to hear the Commercial Original Petition arising from Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in terms of specified value, territorial jurisdiction and the nature of the dispute i.e., commercial dispute.
Case Title: Mrs. Kurnuda Sreenivasa Sasikanth vs. M/S Ananya Child Development and Early
Case Number: Arbitration Application No.100 of 202
The Telangana High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe has held that a valid notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a mandatory requirement for invoking arbitration, and its absence renders an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Act non-maintainable.
Arbitral Tribunal Is The Fulcrum And The Facilitator For Taking Evidence Under Section 27 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: V. Sreenivas Reddy v. B.L. Rathnamma
Case Number: CRP/2401/2024
The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini, while dismissing a Civil Revision Petition (CRP), has held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the fulcrum and the facilitator under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. The Bench further held that only Arbitral Tribunal can make a representation before a Court under Section 27(5).