Supreme Court Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred : Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023 In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator...
Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse to make a reference if the claims, on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, are ex-facie barred.
"...there is no doubt as to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings in general and that of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 in particular", said the Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
Case Details: M/S Arif Azim Co Ltd v. M/S Aptech Ltd. Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2023
In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court delved into the crucial question of whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to applications for the appointment of arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court highlighted the absence of a statutory prescription regarding the time limit for such applications and expressed concerns about the unduly long three-year period allowed for filing under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. While recognizing the legislative vacuum, the court urged Parliament to consider amending the Act to prescribe a specific limitation period for filing applications under Section 11(6). The decision emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes and addressed the potential impact of the absence of a time-bound framework.
Case Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 246
The Supreme Court reiterated that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in another contract unless a specific reference was made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause into the main contract.
Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that unless a specific reference is made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause of another contract then the parties are bound to settle their dispute through the mode of settlement agreed to in the main contract.
Case Title: AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. v. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED.,
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC )267
In a crucial judgment, while allowing the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the Supreme Court (on March 04), held that to determine the factor of arbitral bias, Court must endeavour to follow international standards than domestic ones. It is only in exceptional circumstances that enforcement of a foreign should be refused on the ground of bias the Court said.
"Embracing international standards in arbitration would foster trust, certainty, and effectiveness in the resolution of disputes on a global scale. The above discussion would persuade us to say that in India, we must adopt an internationally recognized narrow standard of public policy, when dealing with the aspect of bias"
High Courts
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Dr. Rajeev Sinha vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136 [WRIT - C No. - 33840 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court has held that existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside an arbitral award passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Jhansi acting as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1965 for not following the directions given by the District Judge while allowing appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
“This Court seriously deprecates the approach of the Arbitrator/Collector who is vested with statutory powers to determine lawful compensation as per the scheme of the Act of 1956 and, therefore, once the Court superior to him analyzed each and every aspect of the initial award dated 30.09.2010 as well as the arbitral award dated 15.09.2017 and set aside the same after recording findings on merits of the petitioner's claim as regards market value of the land on the date of notifications acquiring the land, the Arbitrator/Collector was bound to follow the quasi-judicial discipline and record finding on each of the parameters discussed by the learned District Judge”
Case Title: Gepdec Infratech Limited Thru Authorized Representative vs U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thru Superintending Engineer Lucknow.
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar held that the allegation under Item No. 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn't automatically disqualify the arbitrator without disclosing any specific relationship between the arbitrator and the party. Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule states that doubts about an arbitrator's independence or impartiality can arise if they currently serve or have served as an arbitrator in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties within the past three years.
The High Court noted that Section 11 delineates the procedure for arbitrator appointments, particularly Sub-sections (6) and (8), underscoring the High Court's role when parties fail to agree on an appointment. Sub-section (8) emphasizes the necessity for the arbitral institution, before appointing an arbitrator, to seek written disclosure from the prospective arbitrator in accordance with Section 12(1). The court is mandated to consider qualifications agreed upon by the parties, the contents of the disclosure, and other factors ensuring the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator.
Case Title: The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory.
Case Number: Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 16 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited to ascertain an error apparent on the face of the record.
Case Title: - State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 619 of 2023.
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not encompass long delays, and condonation can only be granted in exceptional cases where the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently.
Case Title: Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others.
Case Number: - APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 271 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf set aside an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by the District Judge, noting that the judge failed to give due consideration to Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. Since the limitation period for Section 34 commences upon the receipt of signed award copy, the bench held that it was incumbent on the judge to note the date on which the signed copy was received by the Appellant.
Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R.I. Chagla stayed an arbitral award noting that the Arbitrator contravened the settled law that for a claim for damages, there must be proof of actual loss which is sine qua non for such claim. It held that the Arbitrator failed to consider the proof of loss while awarding damages to the Claimant.
Case Title: Era International v. Aditya Birla Global Trading India Pvt. Ltd, Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 27638 of 2023
The High Court of Bombay has held that that provisions of Section 12(5) r/w 7th Schedule of the A&C Act also apply to Institutional Arbitrations.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that rules of an arbitral institution cannot override the provisions of the A&C Act. It held that even if parties agree to institutional arbitration, it does not exclude the Court's power to decide on the termination of an arbitrator's mandate if a controversy arises regarding the grounds mentioned in Section 14(1)(a).
Case Title: Mahavir Enterprise vs Chandravati Sunder Salian.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2023.
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that claims that are clearly time-barred must not be entertained, as doing so would perpetuate injustice rather than serving justice. The High Court held that even the slightest doubt regarding the timeliness of a claim warrants its referral to arbitration, as interfering in such matters would encroach upon the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Case Title: M/s.Paresh Construction & Foundation Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.18473 OF 2023 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO.13 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Bharti Dangre held although there might be an impression that with the legal termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate upon the expiration of one year from the reference entry, as per Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 there might be a technical difficulty. However, it held that such technicalities should not thwart the overarching objective of the proceedings.
Case Title: M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd vs M/s. Shilpi Engineering Pvt.Ltd.
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 779 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1131 OF 2018.
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R.I. Chagla held that where the arbitral award is in the nature of money decree, there is a requirement for deposit of 100% of the awarded amount for grant of stay. Further, it held that there is no distinction in the application of parameters between stays sought under Section 36(3) and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, as neither provision specifies such differentiation
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: RKD Niraj JV vs The Union Of India.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the clause in General Conditions of Contract stipulating appointment of a panel of three gazetted railway officers for arbitration violated Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules of the Act.
The High Court noted that the Clause 64(3)(a)(ii) of the GCC mandated an agreement to arbitration under three gazetted railway officers, subject to a specified rank. The High Court noted that Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, in conjunction with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules, guards against the appointment of arbitrators with potential conflicts of interest. It highlighted Entry-1 of the Seventh Schedule, which specifically bars arbitrators with relationships or conflicts with the parties, counsel, or if the arbitrator has a business relationship with a party.
Case Title: Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. Vs. Uma Earth Movers and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that both Principal Civil Court and Commercial Division of the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 9 petition if the claim amount is between Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore. It rejected the contention that the City Civil Court doesn't have jurisdiction to receive or try the first application under Section 9.
The High Court held that Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, meticulously defined the term "Court," designating the forum where a party is obligated to bring a subject matter related to arbitration for adjudication.
It referred to a Notification published on 20.3.2020 in the Kolkata Gazette Extraordinary by the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal. This notification, executed under the authority granted by section 3(1-A) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, altered the landscape by delineating the pecuniary jurisdiction of both the City Civil Court and the Calcutta High Court. The notification specifies the pecuniary jurisdictions of these courts in relation to the value of commercial disputes, establishing concurrent jurisdiction for commercial disputes ranging from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore. Notably, considering the Petitioner's claim of approximately Rs. 67.53 lakhs, the High Court held that both the City Civil Court and the Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court would have concurrent jurisdiction.
Case Title: SRMB Srijan Limited vs Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited.
Case Number: IA No: GA 1 of 2022 In A.P.- COM 281 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that for an unconditional stay of an arbitral award on pretext of fraud, there should prima facie case of fraud which should be evident on the face of the record without the necessity of a detailed or through examination. The bench held that fraud must be evident and reprehensible, with a substantial impact on the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Case Number: A.P. COM 41 of 2024.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the word “Court” in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator takes the character of the appointing authority under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, it held that can only be the Court which has the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11.
Case Title: The Secretary, E & NF Railway Junior Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Eastern Railway vs Sri Jyotish Chandra Sarkar & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. No. 3243 of 2013
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that disputes concerning the management, constitution, or business of the society, between the society and its members or those claiming through them, are subject to arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Therefore, it set aside orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for entertaining the complaint.
Case Title: Tree House Education And Accessories Ltd. Versus Holy Trust School
Case Number: AP/24/2024
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that it would be an unnatural construction of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where a party with a bona fide and a genuine claim is left in the lurch on the defence of the claim being barred by limitation. It held that when parties engage in constant communication for the settlement of claims, it would be unjust to dismiss a claim solely on the grounds of being time-barred.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aakash Educational Services Ltd Vs M/S Lotus Education & Ors.
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that mere invalidation or unenforceability of the arbitrator appointment process does not render the entire arbitration clause void. The bench held that even if an arbitration award is set aside due to unilateral appointment and non-compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, fundamental agreement between the parties to submit their disputes to arbitration remains intact. Therefore, the parties can file a fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for arbitrator appointment.
The primary objection raised by the Respondent was that if an arbitration award is set aside due to unilateral appointment and non-compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, the Petitioner cannot file a fresh application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act for arbitrator appointment.
The High Court rejected the Respondent's contention that exhaustion of remedies under the arbitration clause prevents seeking re-appointment of the arbitrator. It held that as long as disputes covered by the arbitration agreement remain unresolved, parties are free to invoke arbitration again after an award is set aside. It held that setting aside an award doesn't preclude parties from re-agitating their claims before another arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: Indian Highways Management Company Ltd. vs Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the MSME Facilitation Council does not have the jurisdiction to arbitrate matters pertaining to individual service providers who do not fall under the definition of 'supplier' under the MSME Act. The same would be violative of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The High Court held that even with the Respondent's expansive interpretation of Section 2(n)(iii) of the MSME Act, the Respondent does not fulfil the definition of a 'supplier.' It held that the Agreement in question didn't entail the sale of any goods from the Respondent to the Petitioner. The services provided by the Respondent to the Petitioner were carried out by the Respondent itself, not by a micro or small enterprise. The Agreement assigned the Respondent the responsibility of procuring and installing equipment at the Petitioner's toll plazas and maintaining it for five years, along with other contracted services.
Case Title: The Executive Engineer & Ors Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be invoked where a party has failed to invoke other remedies available to it under law. It held that if a party fails to challenge the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot approach the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court noted that the Arbitral Tribunal proceedings were initiated on 16.08.2022, with repeated reminders sent to the Petitioner urging its participation. However, the Petitioner consistently refused to engage in the proceedings. Despite being aware of the ongoing arbitration, the Petitioner did not challenge the award within the prescribed time under the Arbitration Act, opting instead to approach the court through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court emphasized that Article 226 is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be invoked when other remedies available under the law have not been pursued. It acknowledged the objectives of the MSMED Act, which was designed to alleviate the regulatory burden on such enterprises. It noted that once a matter is referred to arbitration and an award is passed, it can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act or Section 19 of the MSMED Act.
Section 29A Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Commenced Before 2015: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Zillion Infraprojecs Pvt. Ltd Through Anant Saxena Vs Fab-Tach Works & Constructons Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which prescribes a time limit for issuance of arbitral award is not applicable to arbitration proceedings commenced before 2015 Amendment Act. It held that arbitral proceedings commence on the date when the Respondent receives the request for reference to arbitration. Section 29A mandates for the tribunal to make the award within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings.
The High Court noted that the Section 26 of the Amendment Act explicitly stated that the amendments would not apply to ongoing arbitral proceedings that had commenced in accordance with Section 21 of the Arbitration Act before the commencement of the Amendment Act, unless the parties agreed otherwise. In essence, the applicability of the Amendment Act was made prospective unless there was mutual agreement for retrospective application. The pivotal question before the High Court was whether Section 29A and its prescribed time limits would be applicable to arbitral proceedings initiated before the enactment of the Amendment Act.
Case Title: Govt. Of NCT of Delhi vs M/s R.S Sharma Contractors Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral proceedings before the arbitrator are not required to be technical in nature and the arbitrator is within its power to decide the same on the basis of material on record. The bench held that the arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality and quantity of evidence, and the court's role is not to reassess the material or correct the arbitrator's errors under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The High Court held that the legislative mandate is to ensure an expeditious and binding dispute resolution process with minimal court intervention. The proceedings under Section 34 are summary, reflecting the legislative intent for minimal interference and prompt dispute resolution. It clarified that the scope of inquiry under Section 34 is confined to assessing whether the grounds specified in Section 34(2), 13(5), or 16(6) justify setting aside the award. It reiterated that the arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality and quantity of evidence, and the court's role is not to reassess the material or correct the arbitrator's errors.
Case Title: M/s NHPC Ltd v. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, OMP(ENF.)(COMM) 184 of 2023
The High Court of Delhi has held that the counterclaims allowed by the arbitral tribunal can be enforced under Section 36 of the A&C Act when the portion of the award granting larger sums to the judgment-debtor (claimant in the arbitration) is set aside.
The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated that partial setting aside of an award is permissible under the Act, therefore, when the award qua the claims allowed is set aside, the award regarding the counterclaims remains valid and enforceable.
The Court held that the counterclaims allowed by the arbitral tribunal can be enforced under Section 36 of the A&C Act when the portion of the award granting larger sums to the judgment-debtor (claimant in the arbitration) is set aside.
The Court reiterated that partial setting aside of an award is permissible under the Act, therefore, when the award qua the claims allowed is set aside, the award regarding the counterclaims remains valid and enforceable.
Case Title: M/s Fortuna Skill Management Pvt Ltd v. M/s Jaina Marketing and Associates
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 348
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot be faulted for disallowing additional evidence at the fag end especially when the document was already in possession of the party.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan also held that arbitral tribunal is not strictly bound by the Indian Evidence Act.
Case Title: Alka Sachdeva vs Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 335
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan dismissed the contention that a party can waive its right to object to the arbitrator's appointment through its conduct. It underscored that any waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be explicit and in writing. It noted that there is no room for implying a waiver of rights under Section 12(5) through conduct or any other means. Even if a party participates in arbitral proceedings without explicitly objecting to the arbitrator's appointment, it cannot be construed as a waiver of its rights under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Ved Contracts Pvt Ltd Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 336
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that if there are no clear indications to the contrary, the venue specified in an arbitration clause should be considered as the seat of arbitral proceedings. It underscored importance of discerning the intention of the parties by examining the entirety of the contract's terms.
One Party Cannot Appoint 2/3rd Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Apex Buldsys Limited v. IRCON International Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 341
The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel for appointment of arbitrator cannot be restricted to mere 3 names as it would violate broad-based representation. Moreover, one party cannot appoint 2/3rd members of the arbitral tribunal as it would violate principles of neutrality and counter-balancing.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also held that a petition under Section 11 cannot be dismissed on ground of non-service of Section 21 notice if the earlier petition under Section 11 was disposed of with directions to treat that petition as Section 21 notice itself.
Case Title: Avdhesh Mittal Vs Deepak Vig.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 342
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to a party isn't merely procedural but confers a substantive right upon them to challenge the award within the statutory period. The bench held that the presumption of deemed service under Section 3 of the Arbitration Act is rebuttable and can be negated if a party establishes that delivery of the written communication could not have been effected despite fulfilling the conditions under Section 3.
Case Title: Srf Limited Vs Jonson Rubber Industries Limited.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 343
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that the tax invoices explicitly containing the arbitration clause and parties without raising any dispute concerning it are legally bound by the arbitration clause.
“In the present case, the parties have a running account which is not in dispute. Two purchase orders may have been placed by the Respondent and various invoices may have been issued by the Petitioner. These invoices clearly state that the terms and conditions listed at the back are applicable. Considering that the parties are in regular business dealings with each other, it cannot be said prima facie that the rear of the invoice was not supplied to the Respondent.”
Case Title: Maj. Pankaj Rai vs M/s Niit Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 349
The Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that once an arbitration award has been acknowledged to be fully and finally settled by both the parties, it cannot be challenged on the basis of one-sided nature of the arbitration agreement.
Case Title: CG Engineering Company Vs Ircon Infrastructure And Services Limited (Ircon Isl) And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 345
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral tribunal should generally be the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability, except in cases where claims were manifestly and ex facie non-arbitrable. It held that Sub-lease Agreement excluded the disputes related to public premise from arbitration, therefore, making them non-arbitrable.
Case Title: Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that failure to file a copy of arbitral award renders the filing under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incomplete. The bench held that without the copy of the challenged award, it is impossible to consider the grounds to set aside the arbitral award.
Case Title: M/s Upper India Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held aside an arbitral award noting that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. The bench held that that the unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator by Respondent was non-est in law, as it contravened Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Techno Compact Builders v. Railtel Corporation of India Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360
The High Cout of Delhi has held that a panel consisting of 23 names cannot be considered broad-based if lacks arbitrators from different backgrounds.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that a panel must not only be broad in terms of numbers but should also reflect diversity by having arbitrators from diverse backgrounds.
Case Title: Rani Construction v. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 361
The High Court of Delhi has held the membership of an arbitral institution cannot be insisted upon as a pre-requisite for invoking arbitration.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that when parties agree to resolve their dispute through an arbitral institution, such an agreement cannot be construed to mean that they have agreed to take its membership.
The Court held that insistence by an arbitral institution for such membership impinges on the validity of the appointment procedure and amounts to failure to perform the function entrusted to such institution. It held that in such a situation the appointment would be made by the Court under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Dharamvir & Company v. DDA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 362
The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the delay in the execution of the work is attributable to the employer, the same would not entitle the contractor to claim damages unless it pleads and proves that such delay resulted in loss to it.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a procedural order passed by the earlier arbitrator, not being a final decision on the merits, does not preclude the substitute arbitrator from deciding the claims on their merits. It held that an order cannot be treated as an interim award when the issue was left to be decided on the merits at a later stage.
Delhi High Court Directs Arbitrator To Refund 6 Lakh Of 14.5 Lakh Fee Paid By Parties
Case Title: Smt. Manju Gupta & Ors. Vs Shri Vilas Gupta & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 383
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed the arbitrator to refund Rs.6,00,000- of the fees of Rs.14,50,000/- paid by the parties to the arbitrator noting the arbitrator had conducted a total of twelve hearings, of which only three resulted in substantive orders. Moreover, the bench noted that the issues in the arbitral proceedings had not yet been framed, and the arbitral proceedings had been on hold for over a year.
Case Title: Department Of Transport Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs Green City Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 376
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that not every defect leads to the dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and took a liberal approach for condonation of delay. It held that defects were not fundamental in nature and could be termed as curable or procedural.
Case Title: M/S Delhi Msw Solutions Limited vs Amity Software Systems Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 382
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay of 191 days for petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that explanation provided for the delay was sketchy and did not corelate any event to specific dates or time period.
Case Title: Fusionnet Web Services v. Yash Fiber Network
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 381
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a mere franchisee responsible for promotion of services provided by the petitioner, ergo, it does not fall under the definitions of licensee, licensor, service provider, or group of consumers as per the TRAI Act. It held that bar under Section 14 only applies in relation to telecommunication services and not to every agreement involving a service provider.
Case Title: Oriel Financial Solutions v. Bestech Advisors Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 380
The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal rejecting an application challenging its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the A&C Act cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless the order is so perverse that it shocks the conscience of the Court.
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad reiterated that to protect the sanctity of the arbitral process, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with an order of the arbitral tribunal in exercise of their writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: Nbcc India Ltd Vs Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 379
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a service supplier, upon registering during an ongoing contract, is eligible to avail benefits under the MSMED Act for services provided after registration. It held that it is always open to the arbitrator to decide this issue even as a preliminary issue.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Mishra Construction Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Vijay Kumar Mishra vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 378
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that such a petition should be filed at the place of the subordinate office of the corporation.
“In the present case as well, the subordinate office of the respondent is situated at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and for the said reason, the State of Madhya Pradesh will have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
Case Title: Psa Protech And Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Food Corporation Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 377
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be allowed even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Section 29A deals with the time limit for arbitral award. It specifies that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference. However, parties may extend this period by mutual consent for up to six months. If the award is not made within this time frame, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal shall terminate unless the Court has extended the time period.
Case Title: Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 259
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh terminated mandate of an arbitrator who disclosed the award prematurely and revealed details about several claims during the hearing of the arbitral proceedings to the party. The bench held that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates for strictest confidentiality in arbitration proceedings and the Award itself.
After considering the report submitted by DIAC, the High Court noted that during the hearing, the Arbitrator was dictating the Award in the hearing room. This dictation was being typed by the P.A. on a desktop computer, which was mirrored on a large display in the room, as per general practice. Upon the arrival of the parties and their counsel, the Arbitrator initiated discussions about the mandate of the Tribunal. Simultaneously, the P.A. minimized the computer screen on which the Award was being typed, ensuring that the parties were not able to see the ongoing process. The DIAC, however, clarified that due to the enclosed space and confidentiality reasons, staff beyond the barest minimum required were not present in the room. The High Court noted that the Centre could not comment on any formal or informal discussions between the parties and the Arbitrator during that time.
Case Title: Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 260
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh held that multiple arbitrations before different Arbitral Tribunals in respect of the same contract is counterproductive and ought to be avoided.
The bench held that it is incumbent on the parties to disclose such information to the court when approaching for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
The High Court referred to the case of Gammon India Ltd. & Anr. v. NHAI, 2020:DHC:2144, and noted that it an important to avert the potential pitfalls associated with multiple arbitrations before distinct Arbitral Tribunals concerning the same contract. The High Court emphasized the counterproductivity of such a scenario and stressed the importance of avoiding conflicting and irreconcilable findings.
Case Title: M/S. Fiberfill Engineers Through Its Partner Mr. Rishabh Kishore Vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Dy. General Manager (Engg.)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 261
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan set aside an arbitral award noting that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited failed to present evidence before the Arbitrator, thereby, making it impossible to adjudicate the contention raised regarding payment of dues. The bench imposed a substantial costs of Rs.1 lakh on the Indian Oil for taking unjustifiable contrary stands at various points in the proceedings.
The High Court noted a contradiction in the Respondent's stance before the Arbitrator. Despite claiming that No Due Certificates were signed by the Petitioner, it noted that the Respondent failed to produce those certificates. Regarding the inconsistency of documents presented in arbitration proceedings, it highlighted the Respondent's inability to correlate certificates with specific work orders or match them with payments. It noted that the No Due Certificates were made prior to any payment by the Respondent. It held that there were no certificates issued after payment.
Case Title: Union Of India Vs NCC Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 262
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that non filing of the arbitral award along with the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a fatal defect, making such filing as non-est.
The bench held that the absence of a copy of the award renders it impossible to appreciate the grounds for seeking to set aside the award.
The High Court referred to the decision of its Division Bench, particularly the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Joint Venture of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & Ors. [FAO(OS)(COMM) 324/2019, dated 09.01.2023]. In this case, it was explicitly stated that non-filing of the award constitutes a fatal defect. The High Court emphasized the necessity for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, to be accompanied by a copy of the challenged award, without which the grounds for setting aside the award cannot be appreciated.
Case Title: M/S. Breakthrough Concepts Vs M/S. Atrix Group Of Restaurants & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 264
The Delhi High Court single bench comprising held that 'negotiation' necessitates communication between the involved parties, asserting that a party failing to respond to legal notices from another cannot be considered actively participating in the negotiation process. Consequently, Justice Sharma referred the matter to arbitral tribunal.
The High Court held that the Petitioner diligently pursued resolution by consistently dispatching demand notices to the Respondents, all of which went unanswered. It held that this showed the Petitioner's earnest attempt to seek a resolution before resorting to court intervention. In interpreting the term 'negotiation,' the High Court held that it is imperative to understand it in a pragmatic context. Negotiation necessitates communication between the involved parties, and for it to be effective, it must be a reciprocal exchange.
Case Title: National Skill Development Corporation Vs Best First Step Education Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 265
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when filed before the award is delivered during the ongoing petition, but becomes non-maintainable if filed after the award is delivered and proceedings for setting aside have commenced.
The High Court referred to the case of Harkirat Singh Sodhi v. Oram Foods (P) Ltd. [2023 LiveLaw (Del) 538], involved a situation similar to the case, where the award was rendered during the pendency of the Section 29A petition, and the mandate was extended until the award date. Another Coordinate Bench, in Powergrid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd., considered the question of whether an award could be validated if made after the Tribunal's mandate had expired and no prior application for extension was submitted. The court concluded that such a petition is not maintainable.
Case Title: Tata Motor Limited vs Delhi Transport Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 273
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Section 9 application under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot act as res judicata for Section 17 application when the withdrawal of Section 9 application is conditional between the parties. The bench dismissed the reliance on Kanchan Kapoor v. Swaran Kumar noting that the principles of res judicata applied in that case due to the appellant's unconditional withdrawal of an appeal against a civil court judgment, where there was a finding against the appellant.
Section 17 provides the arbitral tribunal power to give interim measures to the parties.
The High Court expressed concern over DTC's failure to provide reasons for refraining from challenging the previous orders and questioned the rationale behind making an exception for challenging the present order.
Case Title: M/s Sabsons Agencies Private Limited Vs M/s Harihar Polymers & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 899/2023 & I.As. 25472-25473/2023, 4893/2024.
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that the requirement of pre-litigation meditation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory in nature.
Section 12-A of the Act outlines the mandatory requirement for pre-institution mediation before filing a suit, provided urgent interim relief is not sought. The Central Government may authorize Legal Services Authorities for this purpose, with a three-month mediation timeframe extendable by two months with parties' consent. Settlements reached hold the same status as arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).
The High Court noted that the circumstances in this case was distinguishable from the precedent in Amit Walia v. Shweta Sharma. In that case, the judgment was rendered based on mediation conducted under the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, which the Court deemed sufficient compliance with Section 12-A, despite not occurring before the District Legal Services Authority as stipulated by the Commercial Courts Act.
Case Title: Godavari Projects (J.V) Vs Union of India.
Case Number: ARB.P. 1342/2022.
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that proceedings contemplated in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) do not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the court or authorities to entertain applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act or other proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor against another party. It held that even if a Joint Venture is undergoing insolvency, the bench held that preclude the corporate debtor from filing an application under Section 11.
The High Court emphasized that the question of whether the Petitioner had the authority to terminate the contract by relying on the Government of India's Office Memorandum must be addressed within the arbitral proceedings.
Furthermore, the High Court delved into the concept of a joint venture, referencing the Supreme Court in New Horizons Limited v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 478. The High Court noted that a joint venture as a legal entity akin to a partnership, emphasizing the collaborative nature involving shared assets and risks. Even assuming the Petitioner JV is undergoing insolvency, the High Court clarified that it does not preclude the corporate debtor from filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act against another party. It highlighted that proceedings contemplated in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) do not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the court or authorities to entertain applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act or other proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor against another party.
Case Title: Aerosource India Pvt Ltd. Vs Geetanjali Aviation Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 296
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition filed under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, noting that prima facie there was no arbitration agreement between Petitioner and Respondent. The High Court noted that Section 8(1), as amended in 2015, mandates the referral of parties to arbitration by a judicial authority unless there is prima facie finding that no valid arbitration agreement exists.
Case Title: Rites Ltd Vs Ahuwalia Contract (India) Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 295
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that when parties agree that no interest shall be payable, the Arbitral Tribunal is bound by that agreement. The bench held that that such an agreement is not ultra vires under Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Case Title: Chabbras Associates vs M/s Hscc (India) Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 293
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma rejected the contention presented by Respondent, that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator made in accordance with the contract cannot be challenged and the only option available to the petitioner is to challenge the mandate of the arbitrator. It emphasized that the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator as stipulated in Clause 25 of the GCC was inherently and blatantly unlawful.
Case Title: M/s Sabsons Agencies Private Limited Vs M/s Harihar Polymers & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 286
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that the requirement of pre-litigation meditation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory in nature.
Section 12-A of the Act outlines the mandatory requirement for pre-institution mediation before filing a suit, provided urgent interim relief is not sought. The Central Government may authorize Legal Services Authorities for this purpose, with a three-month mediation timeframe extendable by two months with parties' consent. Settlements reached hold the same status as arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).
Proceedings Under IBC Doesn't Exclude Court Jurisdiction To Entertain Section 11 A&C Applications: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Godavari Projects (J.V) Vs Union of India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 287
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that proceedings contemplated in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) do not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the court or authorities to entertain applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act or other proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor against another party. It held that even if a Joint Venture is undergoing insolvency, the bench held that preclude the corporate debtor from filing an application under Section 11.
Case Title: Indigrid Technology Pvt. Ltd Vs Genestore India Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 292
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that fraud alleging regarding the internal management of the company doesn't go to the root of the contract. Therefore, the bench held that the dispute concerning the lack of authority to enter into a contract are arbitrable.
The bench held that the Court while deciding a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only required to see the existence of an Arbitration Clause.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: M/s Barpeta Agro Infra vs The Union Of India And 2 Others
Case Number: Arb.P./51/2023
The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that panel/appointment of the serving/retired officials of the Railways, as members of the Arbitral Tribunal, is hit by Section 12(5) and the 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Case Title: M/S Trideep Changmai Vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council And Anr
Case Number: Case No. : WP(C)/5029/2021
The Gauhati High Court single bench of Kaushik Goswami dismissed a writ petition noting that when a dispute arises regarding payment under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the mechanism under Section 18 shall be followed to resolve the dispute by way of a conciliation proceeding, failing which arbitration proceeding as prescribed under Section 18 to be conducted.
Case Title: Bhartia Dooars (JV) And 2 Ors Vs Union Of India And 3 Ors.
Case Number: Arb.P./5/2023
The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held the personnel who is the employee of the Indian Railways cannot be appointed as an arbitrator as it would violate Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the law laid down in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Board Of Trustees Of Deendayal Port Through Executive Engineer (H) Vs M/S. Shantilal B. Patel & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that Court cannot sit in appeal over the arbitral award and re-examine the merits. It held that it is not permissible for a court to reappreciate the evidence on record.
Further, it held that the arbitral award cannot be interfered with where on interpretation of any contract or document, two views are possible, and the Arbitrator has accepted one view.
The High Court held that it cannot sit in appeal over an arbitral award and re-examine the merits of the case. It emphasized that it is impermissible to re-appreciate the evidence on record in a Section 34 application. It highlighted the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. Further, it held that interference is not warranted when two possible views on the interpretation of a contract or document exist, and the arbitrator has accepted one view.
Case Title: M/S Sai Polyplast Vs Vikas Raj Chhajer
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal held that the High Court noted that allegations in criminal proceedings regarding fraud and misappropriation of funds, being inter se parties and having no public implications, do not make the dispute non-arbitrable.
The High Court referred to the case of World Sport Group (Mauritius) Limited vs. MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 639, and noted that the arbitration agreement does not become “inoperative” or incapable of being performed merely because allegations of fraud are made. It emphasized that the dispute should not be refused arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act, solely on the grounds of fraud allegations. It clarified that the arbitration agreement can be declined only if it is found to be null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed, not based on the need to inquire into fraud allegations.
In the case of A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasivam and others, (2016) 10 SCC 386, the trial Court rejected an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, citing serious fraud allegations. The Supreme Court examined the correctness of this stand, noting that the Act does not categorize disputes as non-arbitrable. The Supreme Court affirmed that serious fraud allegations should not automatically render the dispute non-arbitrable.
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee dismissed appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that arbitrator's finding was based upon the proper appreciation and interpretation of the prevalent conditions and the site inspection along with the documents on record.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Chander Prabha vs LAC & Anr.
Case Number: Arb. Case No. 303 of 2024.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja held that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute. It held that the Divisional Commissioner, acting as an arbitrator under National Highways Act, 1956, despite the completion of pleadings granted adjournments to the proceedings.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/S. Mvr Constructions Vs M/S. V.M.R Constructions And Others.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4604 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice M G Uma held that the parties not signatories to the Joint Venture Agreement, stipulating the arbitration clause, cannot be forced to arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: M/s Bellary Nirmithi Kendra v. M/s Capital Metal Industries, CRP No. 100067 of 2022
The High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award.
The bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however, this deeming fiction is limited to its enforcement only.
Case Title: M/S Durga Projects Inc Vs Sri. B.G. Babu Reddy
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.434 Of 2014 (A) C/W Criminal Appeal No.433 Of 2014 (A)
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Anil B Katti held that simultaneous proceedings can be carried on under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench further held that a party cannot be acquitted solely on the basis of presence of an arbitration agreement.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rkec Projects Limited Vs The Cochin Port Trust, The Office Of Chief Engineer And Another.
Case Number: IA.NO.1/2023 IN AR NO. 53 OF 2019
The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman held that the Court would be empowered to extend the time for passing the award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even in a case where the arbitral award has already been passed if there exit sufficient grounds for such an extension.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/S Banco Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Narmada Extrusions Ltd
Case Number: ARBITRATION CASE No. 40 of 2022.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Anand Phatak held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding dishonoring of cheques and arbitration are two proceedings moving in different jurisdictional realm and they are parallel in nature rather than overlapping. It held that “both may continue because scope of Section 138 of the N.I. Act is confined to the dishonoured cheques, whereas dispute between the parties appears to be such deep and exact depth can only be fathomed by the arbitrator where parties would have all opportunities to canvas their cause.”
Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court single bench of Justice KR Mohapatra held that Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council doesn't have power to entertain an application with regard to the maintainability of the reference at the conciliation stage under Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. It held that question of maintainability can only be adjudicated if arbitration is taken up by the Council.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: M/S Dharam Pal Maddar And Sons Vs Union Of India Through Senior D.E.N. Iii Drm Office Northern Railway, Ferozepur.
Case Number: RA-CR-204-CII-2018 IN/AND ARB-222-2016 (O&M).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that notice for appointment of an Arbitrator was not necessarily required to be addressed to the General Manager of the Railways. Notice to invoke arbitration was said to be fulfilled as it was sent by a registered post to the Railways.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Akha Ram and Others vs National Highway Authority Of India and Others.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1805/2023.
The Rajasthan High Court single bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that determination of compensation under National Highways Act, 1956 can be challenged before the arbitrator appointment by the Central Government. The bench held that challenges to such determination fall under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/S Sms Limited vs Uranium Corporation Of India Limited
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.175 of 2023.
The Telangana High Court single bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe held that the question of whether the claims of a party are barred by limitation is a matter that necessitates adjudication by the Arbitral Tribunal. Considering the provisions outlined in Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the legislative intent to curtail judicial interference at the pre-reference stage, the bench held that the issue of limitation falls within the purview of the Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication.