Arbitration
90-Day Timeline In Section 18(5) Of MSME Act Is Directory : Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the 90-day timeline for completion of the arbitral proceeding under Section 18(5) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) is directory, not mandatory, and does not terminate or affect the validity of mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council as Arbitrator....
Calcutta High Court Upholds Rs. 780 Crore Arbitration Award In Favour Of Reliance Infrastructure, Refuses Pre Award Interest
The Calcutta High Court division bench, comprising Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, has upheld the arbitral award amounting to Rs 780 crore in favour of Reliance Infrastructure Limited, with the exception of relief on pre-award interest and reduction in the rate of interest on bank guarantee. The court observed that the grant of pre-award interest was patently...
S. 37 Arbitration Act | An Award Can't Be Set Aside Merely Because Appellate Court's View Is A Better View : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today (Sep. 27) observed that unless the arbitral award suffers from the illegality mentioned under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), no award can be interfered with or set aside by the Appellate Courts under Section 37 of the Act. The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal observed that the award cannot be set...
Right To File Section 14 Petition Absolute And Untrammeled By Any Other Considerations: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal, has held that the right of a party to file a Section 14 petition seeking to terminate the mandate of the tribunal is not curtailed because the party had previously filed a Section 16 application before the tribunal and lost. Facts: The petitioner, Yves...
Power Of Courts To Substitute Arbitrator Under Section 29A(6) Essentially To Further Intent Of Section 29A: Delhi High court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, has held that Sub-section (6) pertaining to substitute the arbitrator is there to further the purpose of Section 29A.Section 29A(6) confers power on a court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators while extending the arbitral tribunal's...
Compliance With Pre-Arbitration Formalities Not Mandatory; Can Be Waived By Consensus: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that compliance of the pre-arbitration stages can be waived by consensus. The court observed that forcing the petitioner back to the rigmarole of pre-arbitration formalities would be an unnecessary and futile exercise.Brief Facts:The petitioner, Jayashree Electromech Private Limited, was awarded six letters...
Document Classified As 'Top Secret' Under Official Secrets Act Can't Be Directed To Be Produced By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a document classified “Top Secret” and “Protected” under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, cannot be directed to be produced by an Arbitral Tribunal.Justice Manoj Jain allowed the plea moved by Director General of Project Varsha, Union Ministry of Defence, against an order directing it to submit documents concerning the project in a sealed cover to...
S. 34 Arbitration Act |Mere Violation Of Law Won't Make Arbitral Award Invalid, Fundamental Policy Of Law Must Be Violated : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently explained the scope for judicial interference in arbitral awards under section 34 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of violation of public policy, highlighting that it is very limited, particularly after the 2015 amendment.A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra observed that mere violation of law...
Arbitration | Non-Signatory Party's Conduct And Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement is not necessarily non-binding on a non-signatory party. Such party, though not a signatory, may have intended to be bound through its conduct or relationship with the signatory parties. A referral court must determine the issue from a prima facie perspective; although, ultimately, it is the arbitral tribunal which...
Gujarat High Court Flags Arbitrator Bias, Confirms Setting Aside Arbitral Award On Grounds Of Patent Illegality
The Gujarat High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, has held that agreements for the sale of agricultural land to non-agriculturists are invalid under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act unless necessary permissions from the Collector are obtained. The court observed that the agreement, executed through a Power of Attorney, was a...
Arbitral Tribunal Is The Fulcrum And The Facilitator For Taking Evidence Under Section 27 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini, while dismissing a Civil Revision Petition (CRP), has held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the fulcrum and the facilitator under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. The Bench further held that only Arbitral Tribunal can make a representation before a Court under Section 27(5). Section...
Since Seat Is Fixed, Only Court Having Territorial Jurisdiction Over Seat Has Jurisdiction Over Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that when the seat of the arbitration is contractually fixed, only those Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the seat would have the curial jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Following the dictum in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd, the court held that the High Court of Delhi...