Supreme Court Arbitrator's Power Under Section 32(2)(c) Can Be Exercised Only If Continuation Of Proceedings Has Become Unnecessary Or Impossible: Supreme Court Case Title: Dani Wooltex Corporation & Ors. vs SheilProperties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024 The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that...
Supreme Court
Case Title: Dani Wooltex Corporation & Ors. vs SheilProperties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.
The bench held that the mere existence of a reason for terminating the proceedings is not sufficient. The reason must be such that the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.
Court Doesn't Sit In Appeal Over Arbitral Tribunal's Interpretation Of Contract : Supreme Court
Case Title : National Highway Authority of India v. M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 361
The Supreme Court held that it is for the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the construction of the terms of a contract and the Court under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator
Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Space 4 Business Solution Pvt Ltd Vs The Divisional Commissioner Principal Secretary And Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 360/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right.
The bench held that:
“whether to grant or refuse the interest on the principle amount, is the absolute discretion of the learned Arbitrator.”
Case Title: M/S Divyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs M/S M2k Entertainment Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 162/2020 & I.A. 14331/2012, I.A. 10655/2022
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal.
Case Title: M/S Twenty-Four Secure Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Competent Automobiles Company Limited
Case Number: ARB.P. 24/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a contention that the court lacked the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator, even though the arbitration agreement specified a three-member tribunal.
The bench held that because the parties have not been able to arrive at the name of an arbitrator, the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not premature and was maintainable under the law.
Case Title: M/S Blooming Orchid Vs Fp Life Education Foundation
Case Number: ARB. P. 630/2024 & I.A. 10843/202
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held the period during which the parties were bona fide negotiating towards an amicable settlement may be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for reference to Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that in such cases, the entire negotiation history between the parties must be specifically pleaded and placed on record.
Case Title: Abhimanyu Through Special Power Of Attorney Holder Vs Parmesh Construction Co. Ltd
Case Number: ARB.P. 322/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that where the arbitration seat is fixed, only such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the cause of action arose at Noida, the agreement was executed at Noida, and the suit property is also situated at Noida. Therefore, the courts in Noida have jurisdiction over the appointment of an arbitrator.
Case Title: M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd Vs M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.M.P. (MISC.) 6/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Extramarks Education India Pvt. Ltd Vs Saraswati Shishu Mandir
Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 13/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that that the termination of an arbitrator's mandate does not equate to the termination of the arbitral proceedings. Instead, it allows for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator to ensure the continuation of the proceedings.
Case Title: Purvanchal Hathkargha Sahakari Sangh Ltd Vs All India Handloom Fabrics Society And Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 75/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that except power conferred to the Central Registrar under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 for appointment of an Arbitrator, the other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall remain in operation. It held that the notice as required under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be a pre-requisite even for initiation of proceedings under Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
Case Title: Delhivery Limited Vs. Far Left Retail Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 632
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that objection regarding the insufficiency of service is considered to be on merits and therefore should be raised before the Arbitrator.
Case Title: Ajay Singh and Anr vs Kal Airways Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 612
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside a Single-judge decision that upheld an arbitral tribunal's decision requiring the cash-strapped SpiceJet and its chairman, Ajay Singh, to refund ₹ 270 crore plus interest to media baron Kalanithi Maran and his company, KAL Airways.
The arbitral award directed SpiceJet to refund ₹ 270 crore to Maran, with additional interest rates of 12% per annum on warrants and 18% per annum on the awarded sums if not paid timely.
Case Title: Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Vs M/S Satinder Mahajan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 597
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the seat of the arbitration proceedings is to be determined on the basis of connection with the arbitral proceedings, and not with the cause of action for the underlying disputes.
Case Title: Deepak Maurya Vs Saraswathi Supari Processing Unit & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 595
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that the Court is not required to behave in a mechanical manner to send a party's dispute to the arbitral tribunal and must consider the fundamental issues, within the parameters outlined in Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that:
“Since it is a well-settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court at the stage for making reference is very limited and the referral court cannot enter into the roving enquiry. However, at the same time court is not expected to act in a mechanical fashion and refer the disputes at the mere request. The matter can only be referred if the petitioner has shown existence of some artriable dispute between two parties. The purpose of notice under Section 21 is also to apprise the other party about the disputes between the parties. Strangely, the petitioner neither in the petition nor in the notice has enumerated such disputes.”
Case Title: Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited Vs Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 594
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited to prevent Savera Eats from using the “Burger Singh” registered trademark. The bench held that despite the termination of the franchise agreement, Savera Eats continued to operate the franchise outlet under the Petitioner's registered trademark “Burger Singh”.
Case Title: Mercator Ltd. Vs Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 591
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the public policy argument while considering enforcement of foreign awards has to be construed narrowly and in consonance with international notions of public policy. The bench held that all violations of statute or supporting legislation do not satisfy this ground, and violations must be of fundamental policies considered shocking to the conscience of the Court.
Case Title: M/S Kimaya Buildtech Llp Vs K. C. Software Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Case Number: ARB.P. 691/2023
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the court may address the issue of limitation during a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but only under specific circumstances. It held that this occurs when the limitation bar is clearly evident from the petition and accompanying documents. At the preliminary stage, it held that the court's role is solely to establish the prima facie presence of an arbitration agreement.
Case Title: Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd Vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 577
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held the dispute resolution clauses are considered sacrosanct and cannot be disregarded. Nonetheless, it held the clauses must be read in a pragmatic manner and not in a manner that frustrates the purpose.
Case Title: SBI Cards And Payment Services Private Limited Vs Kony Inc. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 565
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction to SBI Cards under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to ensure access to and operation of certain licensed software. The bench directed the Respondents from taking any action or steps, which would result in the disruption in the credit card services of SBI Cards. through the use of the licensed software.
Case Title: International Avenue Vs Delhi Transport Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 561
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has directed International Avenue to deposit Rs. 5 crores within one week considering the substantial amount due under the arbitral award. The bench held that despite providing multiple opportunities to the company, it failed to comply with the order. It held that this constituted contempt of court.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India Vs M/S Kcc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 540
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that making allegations against the Arbitral Tribunal without any basis is contrary to the letter and spirit of the arbitral process.
Case Title: The Executive Engineer & Ors. Vs M/S Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 560
The Delhi High Court division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the proper recourse against proceedings under the MSMED Act is to file an application under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act or Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Further, the bench held that in case an award has been passed, then the proper recourse is to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Devi Dayal Trust And Others V. M/S Rajhans Towers Pvt. Ltd. [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 NO. 2199 OF 2023]
The Allahabad High Court has held that once party has filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before one Court, he cannot raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of that Court in dealing with any application arising out of the same arbitration agreement in view of Section 42 of the Act.
Section 42 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in Part-I of the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under Part-I has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.
Case Title: M/s Geo Miller and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs UP Jal Nigam and Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 330
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 330
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that if the High Court appoints the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, it has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 29A application for extending the mandate of the arbitrator.
While acknowledging that the issue of the appropriate court for Section 29A applications was pending before a larger bench, the High Court held that the current position continued to be governed by previous judgments such as Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. v. Manish Engineering Enterprises.
Case Title: Sh. Dharmveer Tyagi And Others vs. Competent Authority, Dfcc, Special Land Acquisition (Joint Officer Organization) And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 325 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 257 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 325
The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the timeline provided in Section 34(3) for challenging an arbitral award must be strictly adhered to.
Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a period of 3 months for challenging an arbitral award. Proviso to Section 34(3) empowers Court to condone a delay of 30 days if sufficient cause for delay is show, “but not thereafter.”
Case Title: M/S Moksh Innovations Inc. Lko. Thru. Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht vs. E City Property Management And Services (P) Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Property Manager And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 324 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 266 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 324
The Allahabad High Court has held that by virtue of Section 11(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, special appeal and letters patent appeal against orders passed under Section 11(4), (5) and (6) of the Act is not maintainable. The Court held that since the Amending Act of 2019 which did away with Section 11(7) had not been notified by way of Official Gazette, the bar placed by Section 11(7) is still in force.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India V. Rampyari And Another
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 394 OF 2022
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that an arbitral award should only be set aside if it is clearly vitiated by "patent illegality" evident on the face of the record. The bench held that an award cannot be annulled merely due to an incorrect application of the law or misinterpretation of evidence.
Case Title: Ghaziabad Development Authority v. M/S S.P.G. Infra Projects (Pvt) Limited [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 33 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court has refused to condone a delay of 966 days in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was due to misplacement of case files by the lawyer while shifting his office during Dussehra.
“Misplacement of files due to office shifting, especially during a holiday period, is not an uncommon occurrence. However, the burden lies on the appellant to ensure that necessary precautions and timely measures are in place to prevent such eventualities from affecting crucial legal processes. The appellant's advocate, being a legal professional, is expected to maintain a higher standard of care in managing case files, especially those that are time- sensitive,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Chitra Misra And 13 Others v. M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director And Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2475 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Sole Arbitrator on grounds that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioners, private persons who claimed to be owners of part premises in question, and M/s Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd.
Case Title: Bharatiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran V. Neeraj Sharma And Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 8 of 2020] The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of signed copy of award being delivered to parties under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not to be construed narrowly. The Court held that once the party seeking extension of limitation by applying Section 31(5) of the Act is aware of the contents of the alleged unsigned award, the limitation cannot be extended.
Section 31(5) of Act of 1996 provides that after passing of an arbitral award, its signed copy must be delivered to each party.
Case Title: Nirankar Dutt Tyagi and Anr. vs. N.H.I. Unit Dehradun and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 323 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 593 of 2023 ]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 323
While deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Allahabad High Court has held that a delay in filling the appeal could not be condoned without finding compelling reasons for the same.
Appellant approached the High Court under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 after a delay of 393 days.
The Court relied on M/s N.V. International v. State of Asam and Ors. wherein the Apex Court added a grace period of 30 days to the standard period of 90 days available for filling an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. This was done keeping in mind the objective of speedy resolution of all arbitral disputes, which would have been the ultimate priority of the framers of the Act of 1996. However, the Supreme Court held that an inordinate delay of more than 120 days would not be liable to be condoned.
Case Title: Gaursons Promoters P. Ltd. vs. Aakash Engineers And Contractors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 322 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 144 of 2023]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 322
The Allahabad High Court has held that though a legal issue going to the root of the matter can be raised for the very first time in appellate proceedings but the same is dependent on the facts of the case.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held
“There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that a legal issue going into the root of the matter can be raised for the very first time in the appellate proceedings. However, the question is dependent upon the facts of a particular case.”
Case Title: Ganga Prasad Memorial Trust and another vs DHK Eduserve Limited
Case Number: Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. - 161 Of 2024
The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the question as to the consideration of the grounds, upon which the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is based can only arise when it is being considered by the Court on the merits, i.e., when the court is called upon to apply its mind to the grounds urged in the application.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India Vs Musafir And Others
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 41 of 2021
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the arbitral tribunal cannot recall or modify its award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that none of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996, give the arbitral tribunal the power to recall and modify its award. It held that any act which the arbitral tribunal is not empowered to do under the Arbitration Act is void ab initio.
Case Title: Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer vs Ms. Satendra Nath Sanjeev Kumar Architect, Contractors/Builders, Civil Engineers, And Colonisers
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 182 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the extent of intervention in appellate proceedings according to Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the grounds permissible under Section 34 for contesting the award. It held that the award need not be invalidated unless it is tainted by an evident "patent illegality" discernible on the surface of the record, with the caution that setting aside the award should not be solely based on erroneous legal application or evidence appreciation.
Case Title: State of U.P. vs Nath Construction And Another
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 167 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the requirement to provide reasons by the arbitrator, in accordance with Section 31(3) of the Act, hinges on the pleadings and available documents on record. It held that if the party neither expressly denied the claim of the other party nor supported its case accurately, then it's evident that the award cannot be deemed flawed, especially when the arbitrator is not expected to speculate on matters that are not presented before it.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Gugilla Aruna vs Adluri Ramesh Babu
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.476 of 2021
The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty held that the unregistered Award can be admissible in evidence only for the collateral purpose to the extent of establishing the severance of title, nature of possession of various shares, i.e., in other words, to establish the character, nature, identity, and location in respect of the subject matter, but not for proving the factum of partition of the suit properties.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Talwandi Sabo Power Limited vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited
Case Number: CWP-7950 of 2024
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot go outside the reference order by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86 (1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and cannot widen its jurisdiction by dealing with disputes not referred to it.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/S Kamla Construction Company And Anr. Vs M/S Kamla Construction Company And Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 10781 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held that when the government constitutes a proper dispute redressal system for resolution of any dispute between the parties, the party cannot directly approach the High Court and file a writ petition. It held that when the statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties (referred to Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Ltd vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 15 SCC 44).
Karnataka High Court
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Uphealth Holdings Inc VS Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd And Ors
Case Number: AP-COM/490/2024 IA NO: GA-COM/2/2024, GA-COM/3/2024, GA-COM/4/2024, GA-COM/5/2024, GA-COM/6/2024, GA-COM/7/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the procedure of filing information in sealed covers for enforcement of arbitral award is contrary to the basic process of justice. It held that the concept of sealed covers also makes serious inroads into the principle of natural justice and fairness.
The bench held that:
“If the respondent was in the dark about the financial affairs of the petitioner prior to the filing of the application under section 9 of the Act, it is now sought to be kept in anxiety and suspense if the filing of sealed covers is permitted. There is no element of public interest nor national security involved in these proceedings. The parties are commercial men. The disputes raised between the parties are purely contractual. The underlying interests of both the parties is pure and simple money. In these commercial matters, there is no place for confidentiality nor privacy nor sealed covers.”
Case Title: Saltee Productions Private Limited Vs. Indus Towers Limited
Case Number: CO 3521 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that the starting point of limitation for setting aside an award in a case where a request under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is made is the date of disposal of such request.
The bench held that the time spent from the date of disposal of such request till the signed copy of the order is delivered to the party shall necessarily stand excluded while calculating the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Bmg Gulf Fzc Vs Quippo Oil And Gas Infrastructure Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/327/2024
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that it is for members of the Bar to introspect and take necessary steps and spare the Courts of the unpleasant duty. The decision came while reviewing applications presented before the Commercial Court and High Court, which were held to be beyond their jurisdiction.
Specifically, the Commercial Court was held to be not empowered to entertain applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Additionally, the bench held that the High Court lacked the authority to appoint an arbitrator in International Commercial Arbitration.
Case Title: MFAR Constructions Private Limited vs Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Limited
Case Number: FMAT (ARBAWARD) No.30 of 2022
The Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury held that attempts made by the arbitrator to encourage the parties to reach a settlement cannot be termed as 'conciliation proceeding' under Part-III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that conciliation is seen as an independent proceeding or an alternative dispute redressal forum the object of which is to reach a settlement between the parties. It has its own procedure and ultimate result.
Case Title: Dhansar Engineering Company Private Limited Vs Eastern Coalfields Limited
Case Number: RVWO/38/2023; IA NO: GA/1/2023
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that if an agreement or clause within it necessitates or anticipates additional consent before arbitration can occur, it doesn't constitute arbitration itself but rather an agreement to potentially engage in arbitration in the future, which isn't inherently enforceable. It held that incorporating an arbitration clause via a subsequent circular isn't valid unless it's explicitly mentioned and included in the original agreement between the parties.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s Shree Swaminarayan Travels vs M/s Oil Natural Gas Corporation Limited
Case Number: Arbitration Application No.13 of 2023
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur held that to maintain an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Applicant is required to show that the Respondents failed to act as required under the arbitration clause and failed to refer the disputes to the Arbitrator even after a notice invoking the arbitration clause was served on the Respondents.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Hari Ram and others. Vs National Highways Authority of India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 22
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that the landowner shouldn't suffer for the act of omission of the Arbitrator to make an award within a period of 12 months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the Reference as per Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It held that the reason that as right to property is a Constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, therefore, the landowner cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the law.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs M/s Asphalt Carpet Constructions Co
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 20
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that in case the interpretation of the relevant clause of agreement as arrived at by the Arbitrator was possible and plausible, the same cannot be interfered with merely because another view could have been taken. The bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in UHL Power Company Ltd. versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18 and held that the jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is fairly narrow.
Case Title: State of H.P. & another vs M/s Jagson International Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 21
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that for showing sufficient cause as required under the proviso to Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the party is obligated to reveal their bonafidies coupled with plausible reason in not filing the application within the prescribed time.
Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, deals with the time limit for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award.
Sikkim High Court
Case Title: Union of India vs M/s M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Arb. A. No. 1 of 2022
The Sikkim High Court bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan held that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 gives no power to the court to modify an award while hearing a challenge to an arbitral award. The bench held that the court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award, and any attempt to do so, even if the award conflicts with the grounds specified under Section 34, would be wholly unsustainable in law.