30 Days Grace Period Expired During Court Break, Section 34 Petition Can't Be Entertained Even If Filed On Reopening: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot be entertained by the Court even if the 30 days condonable grace period given under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act expired during the Court breaks and the petition was filed on the date on which the Court reopened. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju...

Arbitration Quarterly Digest 2024

Supreme Court Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Modified Under Sections 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court Case Title: S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14 The Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law that any attempt to “modify an award” while adjudicating Sections 34 and 37 petitions is not...

Group Of Companies | Absence Of Specific Prayer For Impleadment Of Non-Signatory Doesn't Preclude Arbitral Tribunal From Applying GOC: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R I Chagla held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the Arbitration Agreement and to implead the non-signatory. The Court held that the absence of a specific prayer for the impleadment of a non-signatory in a Section 11 Application does not preclude the application of the 'group...

Whether Non-Filing Of 'Statement Of Truth' Along With A Petition U/S 34 Of A&C Act Makes The Filing Non-Est? Delhi High Court Refers Question To Larger Bench For Clarification In View Of Conflicting Views

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has referred the question 'Whether non-filing of statement of truth with a Challenge Petition would make the filing non-est' to a larger bench in view of conflicting views taken by two Division Benches. Facts The impugned award was passed on 24.07.2023. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner challenged it under Section 34...

Delhi High Court Directs Google To Maintain Status Quo In An Advertisement Agreement, Citing Irreparable Loss Due To Ad Blockage

The High Court of Delhi has directed Google India to maintain status quo in respect of advertisement displayed on its platforms by observing that the main revenue for a party in an advertisement agreement comes from the ad revenue and en masse blocking of ads would result in irreparable loss to that party. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh also reiterated that a Section...

Once Parties Explore Settlement Of Dispute Through Arbitration, It Can't Be Said That Pre-Condition To Invoke Arbitration Was Not Fulfilled: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court single bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe held that the precondition for invoking the arbitration clause is considered fulfilled when parties explore the possibility of settling the dispute amicably through arbitration. Correspondence and exchanges between the parties can be perused to assess whether there was an agreement over an...

Notice Under S. 21 Must Be Unequivocal, Should Leave No Doubt In Mind Of Noticee, Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Section 11(6), A&C Act Application

The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal dismissed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and noted that the Petitioner failed to send a clear notice as per Section 21 of the Act. The bench held that a notice under Section 21 has to be unequivocal to leave no manner of doubt in the mind of the noticee that the claimant intends to...

Cognizance Taken By Magistrate For Cheating And Forgery , Calcutta High Court Refuse To Refer Parties To Arbitration

The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application filed under Section 8 of the A&C Act by observing that the allegations of fraud and forgery would be serious in nature when the cognizance of the same is take by the magistrate. The bench of Justice Krishna Rao relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasiva, (2016) 10 SCC 386 and Rashid Raza...

Arbitration Act | Condonation Must Be Treated As Exception Especially In Cases Involving Fixed Appeal Periods, Delhi High Court Dismisses S. 34 Application

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay and termed it unreasonable that it took the Appellant nearly two months to collate documents that should have been readily available, considering they would have been submitted with the initial application under Section 34 of the Arbitration...

No Provision Under Arbitration Act To Spilt Parties Or Refer Part Of Subject Matter To Arbitration, Delhi High Court Dismisses S. 8 Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is no provision for splitting of parties and referring part of the subject matter to arbitration. It held that where a suit encompasses matters outside the arbitration agreement and involves parties not party to the said agreement, Section 8 of the Arbitration...

Appointment Of Arbitrator When Claims Not Covered By GCC Would Cause Wastage Of Resources And Time: Gauhati High Court Dismisses S. 11 Application

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that while the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability lies with the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court may intervene in manifestly non-arbitrable claims to prevent resource wastage. “To appoint an Arbitrator, even though there is no doubt in the view of this Court that the present dispute is not...

Certified Copy Of Original Arbitration Agreement Attested By 'Notary Public' Is Sufficient Under S. 8(2) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that a certified copy of the original agreement 'attested by a Notary Public' is sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. Once filed, the courts must refer the parties to arbitration. Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act provides, “The application referred to in sub-section...