Delhi High Court Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor Case Number: ARB.P. 882/2022 The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal...
Delhi High Court
Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor
Case Number: ARB.P. 882/2022
The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pertains to the extensiArbitration Weekly Roundup: June 17 - June 23, 2024
Delhi High Court
Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor
Case Number: ARB.P. 882/2022
The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pertains to the extension of the time period for arbitral tribunals to make their awards. This section gives courts the power to extend the mandate of the arbitral tribunal beyond the originally specified period.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd and anr vs M/s. SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. And ors
Case Number: I.A. (L) NO.6246 OF 2024 IN COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L)NO.5565 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has held that even in a case which does not fall under the second proviso of the Section 36(3), by relying on the first proviso, the Court can consider whether to grant unconditional stay of the award or not.
Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the enforcement of arbitral awards. It outlines the procedure for enforcing an arbitral award once the time for challenging the award under Section 34 has expired.
First Proviso of Section 36:
“Provided that the Court shall, while considering the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”.
Second Proviso of Section 36:
“Provided further that where the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out that,--
(a) the arbitration agreement or contract which is the basis of the award; or
(b) the making of the award,
was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, it shall stay the award unconditionally pending disposal of the challenge under section 34 to the award.”
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Sri Sai Krishna Constructions vs Harvins Constructions Plimited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS)103
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos.221 of 2023 and 32 of 2024
The Telangana High Court bench of ChiefJustice Alok Aradhe has dismissed an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator noting that the party failed to establish prima facie evidence of the existence of valid arbitration agreement.
The bench held that the court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) must conclusively determine the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement as the same goes to the root of the matter.
Section 11(6) empowers a party to apply to the Chief Justice or a designated authority if there is a failure in the agreed procedure for appointing arbitrators.
Court Must Assign Reasons When Releasing Amount Under Section 19 of MSME Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: National Small Industries Corporation vs Brahma Teja Paper Products
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS)104
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1543 of 2024
The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti has held that the court while dealing with a prayer under Section 19 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 to release the amount has to assign reasons for releasing such percentage of the amount.
Section 19 of the MSME Act provides that the court may permit the release of a portion of the deposited amount to the supplier pending the decision on the application to set aside the decree, award, or order, contingent upon the circumstances and conditions it deems fit to impose.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Pcm Cement Concrete Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union Of India and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 43
Case Number: Arb. P. 35/2023
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that Railways cannot constitute an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of serving/retired Railway Officers, as it was not in consonance with Section 12(5) and 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 12(5) deals with the grounds of ineligibility of an individual to act as an arbitrator. It states that a person shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator if he falls under any of the categories specified in the 7th Schedule.
Case Title: Durga Krishna Store Pvt Ltd Vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors
Case Number: Arb.P./14/2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana has held that the panel of arbitrators of Railways would have a certain amount of relationship with the Railways and therefore, they would be covered by the 7th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, lists the categories of persons who are ineligible to be appointed as arbitrators due to potential conflicts of interest. These categories include individuals who have a familial relationship with any of the parties, or who have any financial or other interest in the outcome of the arbitration.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Yeshwant Boolani (Dead) through Lrs. Tarun Dhameja vs Sunil Dhameja and Anr.
Case No.: Arbitration Case No. 19 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 142
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that parties could not be compelled to opt for arbitration when the agreement clearly left it to the discretion of the parties. A discretionary arbitration clause would require the mutual consent of all parties for the dispute to be referred to arbitration.