Delhi High Court [Arbitration Act] Section 29A Allows Extension Requests Even After Arbitrator's Mandate Expires: Delhi High Court Case Title: Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 120/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation...
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited
Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 120/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not preclude the consideration of applications for extension of the arbitrator's mandate filed after the expiration of the mandate.
Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (Tcil) Vs Ngbps Ltd
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 171/2019
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a general explanation of intra-departmental analysis and discussions doesn't constitute as valid and credible explanation for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Ms. Sarika Chaturvedi Vs Agarwal Auto Traders & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 48/2024 & I.A. 29792/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on a party for unnecessarily challenging and questioning the mandate of the arbitrator. The bench held that the party's intent was to create a stale mate. It held that repeated interventions of the court in arbitral proceedings are to be avoided and parties cannot force the arbitrators to recuse/withdraw.
Case Title: Jagdish Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indag Rubber Limited
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 165/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that a party is not permitted to challenge a procedural order passed by an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that:
“…it is observed that by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 the Petitioner is merely attempting to avoid the appellate provision under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 which clearly stipulates as to which orders are appealable.”
Case Title: M/S Kld Creation Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
Case Number: ARB.P. 321/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the role of the court is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that once the court confirms that the arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from delving into other issues, which are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
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 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 Kings Chariot Vs Mr. Tarun Wadhwa
Case Number: ARB.P. 421/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that where no seat of arbitration is specified in the arbitration agreement, the jurisdiction of the court shall be determined in accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C.
The bench held that:
“….no confusion and law is explicit that for the purpose of Arbitration, even if no part of cause of action has arisen in a place, then too, the parties can agree on a seat of jurisdiction, which would then become the place for all litigation under the Arbitration Act. However, if the parties do not specify any seat/place of Arbitration, them the jurisdiction of the Court shall be determined in a accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C.”
Case Title: Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs M/S Dsc Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 331/2020 & I.A. 10114/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the question of determination of whether indeed, there was a delay on the part of the Contractor is not an excepted matter and it is only the quantum of damages which is non-arbitrable.
The bench held that:
“….the question of determination of delay, is not an excepted matter and has to be necessarily arbitrated and is an arbitrable dispute.”
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 10525 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the Zonal Micro and Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Meerut Zone, Meerut under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as the petitioners, Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited and others, had refused to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 19 of the MSME Act.
The Court held that even though principles of natural justice have been violated, it does not bar the Court from relegating the parties to alternate remedy available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Smt. Jasvinder Kaur v. National Highways Authority Of India And 2 Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 264 of 2023]
The Allahabad High Court has held that the arbitrator is obligated to deliver signed copies of arbitral award to each party to the arbitration. It has been held that irrespective of the fact that no specific request has been made by the parties for certified copy of the award, the arbitrator must deliver the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Section 31(5) of the Act unequivocally imposes an obligation upon the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy of the arbitral award to each party involved in the arbitration. This statutory duty is not contingent upon a party's request for the award; rather, it is an imperative that must be fulfilled by the Arbitrator irrespective of any such request. The failure to comply with this statutory obligation can lead to significant procedural irregularities, potentially undermining the arbitral process and the enforceability of the award,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Case Title:Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr.
Case Number: CM(M) No.102/2023 CM No.2991/2023
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that interest for the prereference period as well as the pendente lite interest cannot be claimed under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
The bench held that when pre-suit interest, pendente lite interest and future interest has to be awarded on the principal sum adjudged, the interest can be awarded only on the principal sum and it does not provide for payment of interest on interest. Therefore, it held that there is no scope for the award of interest on the pendente lite interest under the Arbitration Act, of 1940.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: M/S. Jcl Infra Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Union Of India And Anr
Case Number: Arb.P./22/2023
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that it is the duty of courts to examine and reject time-barred claims to prevent parties from being trapped in protracted and costly arbitration processes.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. M/s Rites Ltd. and Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 91
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL) challenging the writ court's order to appoint a sole arbitrator in its dispute with M/s Rites.
The Court emphasized that it is the High Court's duty to reject petitions or defenses based on purely technical grounds aimed at gaining an unfair advantage.
The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar, noted, “…except for a broad proposition that the High Court should not exercise its powers in teeth of the provisions under the AC Act, we are not shown any decision that in a situation like the present one no order for referring the parties to arbitration could have been made by the writ Court. The submission that the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution to accept the proposal of an aggrieved party for arbitration notwithstanding refusal by the other party shall open floodgates cannot be countenance in law."