Arbitration
An Enabling Clause Does Not Constitute A Binding Arbitration Agreement Between The Parties: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that once the parties have agreed to use the word 'may', the parties have conferred a discretion to enter into an arbitration agreement in the future; and that such an enabling clause does not constitute any binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The Single Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni held that the use of the word "may" does not bring...
Court While Deciding 'Section 11' Application Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator Can Consider Whether Dispute Falls Within 'Excepted Clause' : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that, at the stage of deciding application for appointment of arbitrator, a Court can consider whether the dispute falls within the excepted clause.The court observed that the question of jurisdiction and non-Âarbitrability can be considered by a Court at the stage of deciding an application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the facts are very...
Non Applicability Of Section 9 Of The A&C Act Can't Be Presumed If Parties Opted For Foreign-Seated Institutional Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, they cannot be presumed to have entered into an agreement to exclude the applicability of Section 9 of the A&C Act as provided under the proviso to Section 2(2) of the A&C Act. The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula held that the words...
Application Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act For Pre-Award Relief Can Be Filed In A Court Where The Assets Of The Respondent Are Located: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act for pre-award relief can also be filed before the Court where the assets of the respondent are located. The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the Court for the purpose of Section 9 application in a foreign seated arbitration would be as provided under Section 47 of the...
CPC Contemplates Execution Of A Foreign Decree And Not An Order: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that remedy before the foreign arbitral tribunal would not be inefficacious when the bulk of the assets of a party are located in India as the interim order in a foreign-seated arbitration is not enforceable under the A&C Act. The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula also held that an interim award passed in arbitration with seat in India is...
Once The Right To Refer The Dispute To Arbitration Is Waived By A Party, It Cannot Be Reclaimed: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if a party has disputed the arbitrability of a dispute raised by the opposite party, in its reply to the notice invoking the arbitration clause, it is deemed to have waived its right to seek the reference of the dispute to arbitration. The Court added that if a right is once waived by a party, it cannot be allowed to be reclaimed and hence, the...
The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High CourtThe High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the challenge to an arbitral award is dismissed by the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not mean that the court has...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 10th July To 16th July, 2022
Supreme Court: Court Under Section 34,37 Arbitration Act Cannot Modify An Award ; It Can Only Remand: Supreme Court Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584 The Supreme Court observed that, under Section 34 or 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a Court cannot modify the award passed by the...
Impossible For The Party To Fulfil Its Obligations Under The Contract; Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has ruled since it was impossible for a party to fulfil its obligations under an agreement, in view of the doctrine of frustration, the parties cannot be referred to arbitration, despite the presence of an arbitration clause. The Single Bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that though the lease deed between the parties contained an arbitration...
Amendment To Section 34 Application Of The A&C Act Would Not Be Permissible If It Intends A New Challenge: Bombay High Court
The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court has held that an amendment to the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not be allowed if it leads to absolutely new grounds to challenge the award. The Single Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil held that in an appropriate case it is permissible to allow the amendment to application under Section 34 even beyond the period...
Prima Facie Case Alone Does Not Entitle A Party To Relief Under Section 17 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a prima facie case alone does not entitle a party to relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures. The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that there were highly disputed questions of fact involved in the dispute relating to the interpretation of the agreement between the...
Even If The Principal Agreement Is Non-Existent, The Arbitration Clause Would Still Apply: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the principal agreement is non-existent, the arbitration clause contained therein would still apply. The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that since the issue of limitation and arbitrability was not conclusive against the party, the issue was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner...