Supreme Court: Arbitration Clause Has To Be Given Effect Even If It Does Not Expressly State That Decision Of Arbitrator Is Final & Binding On Parties: Supreme Court Case Title: Babanrao Rajaram Pund versus Samarth Builders & Developers Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 747 The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration clause has to be given effect even if it...
Supreme Court:
Case Title: Babanrao Rajaram Pund versus Samarth Builders & Developers
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 747
The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration clause has to be given effect even if it does not expressly state that the decision of the arbitrator will be final and binding on the parties.
The deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies the intention of the parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise the annulment of arbitration clause, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka observed.
High Courts:
Bombay High Court:
Accepting Terms And Conditions on Website Containing Arbitration Agreement, Valid: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. versus Mohit Raghuram Hegde, Proprietor Creative Infotech
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that reference of a dispute to arbitration can only be refused in cases of "serious allegations of fraud", which is made out when either of the tests propounded by the Apex Court in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. versus HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (2020), are satisfied.
The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni ruled that a declaration made by a party in the KYC executed by it, accepting the terms and conditions provided on the opposite party's website, which included an arbitration agreement, was sufficient for incorporation of an arbitration clause between them.
Case Title: Uttam Energy Ltd. versus M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the jurisdiction and power of the High Court in relation to the appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), has not been divested by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Court added that the term "all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration", as provided under Section 10 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act, does not take within its ambit the application which is required to be filed under Section 11 (6) of the A&C Act before the High Court for seeking appointment of arbitrator(s).
Chhattisgarh High Court:
Case Title: M/s. S. Narinder Singh & Company, Engineers & Government Contractor versus South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently, while dealing with a matter pertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that court can't entertain application for appointment of arbitrator where parties fail to raise dispute in time or avoid in-house dispute resolution mechanism.
Delhi High Court:
Case Title: Drooshba Fabricators versus Indue Private Limited
The High Court of Delhi has held that non-payment or insufficiency of stamp duty on the underlying agreement cannot render the arbitration clause invalid.
The Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C should impound the unstamped/inadequately stamped agreement and direct the parties to cure the defect before the arbitrator could adjudicate upon such an agreement.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court:
Case Title: M/s. Amira Engineers versus Telecommunications Consultants India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 145
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that writs under Article 226 are maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the State or its instrumentalities and the presence of Arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be invoked.
Karnataka High Court:
Case Title: S.R. Ravi versus Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation
The Karnataka High Court has held that the words "statements of claim and defence" under Section 7(4)(c) of the A&C Act are to be given wider interpretation and reply to a notice of arbitration falls within the section.
The Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar held in terms of Section 7(4)(c) an arbitration agreement is said to exist if the petitioner has asserted its existence in its notice of arbitration and the respondent has not denied its existence in its reply to the notice.