Delhi High Court Stays Arbitral Awards Due To Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator

The Delhi High Court bench presided by Justice C. Hari Shankar has stayed the execution of two arbitral awards, holding that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent, without court intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act, rendered the arbitration proceedings invalid...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: August 2024

Supreme CourtArbitration | Impermissible For Arbitral Tribunal Or Courts To Grant Interest Upon Interest Under 1940 Act : Supreme Court Case Details: M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.812 OF 2014 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 558 The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an Arbitral Tribunal is not empowered to grant interest upon interest while passing an arbitral award as the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not specifically provide...

Both Parties Are Entitled To Get The Benefit Of The Latter Part Of Section 34(3) While Computing The Period Of Limitation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 34 petition, has held that any party can benefit from the second part of Section 34(3) when calculating the limitation period. The statute's language does not specify who should request under Section 33. Therefore, the benefit of calculating the limitation period from the date of disposal of the Section...

Arbitration | View That Delay Beyond 120 Days For S.37 Appeals Can't Be Condoned May Require Reconsideration: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the view expressed in an earlier judgment that delay beyond the period of 120 days in preferring an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be condoned may require reconsideration.The Court observed that in view of Section 43 of the Act, the above-said view might require reconsideration. As per Section 43, the...

Failure To Name Arbitrator In Legal Notice Does Not Invalidate Arbitration Invocation: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court bench comprising Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati has held that the invocation of an arbitration clause, which required the Applicant to name an Arbitrator, is valid under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even without naming an arbitrator in the legal notice, as long as the existence of an arbitration agreement is prima facie established....

Receipt Of Arbitral Award By Party A Sine Qua Non For Limitation U/S 34(3) To Begin, General Clauses Act Does Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that receipt of the award by the party is a sine qua non for limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to begin and definition of “service by post” under Section 27 of the General Clauses does not apply.The Court observed that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act which defined service by post in a Central Legislation if...

Dispute Relating To Members And Management Of Public Trusts Not Arbitrable, Must File Suit U/S 92 CPC : Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes relating to public trusts which are enlisted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that Section 89 of CPC which provides for settlement of disputes outside Court does not...

Continuous Cooperation Between International And Domestic Arbitration Bodies Needed: Justice Surya Kant

Supreme Court judge Justice Kant on Sunday stressed the need for continued cooperation between international and domestic arbitration bodies in ensuring that arbitration remains a fair, cost-effective, and accessible mode of dispute resolution.Justice Kant was speaking at the valedictory function of the two-day Conference on International Arbitration and Rule of Law. It was organised on...

MSME Act Doesn't Bar Independent Arbitration Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act Based On Agreement Clause: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that Section 18 of the MSME Act does not create any substantive rights or liabilities but simply offers an alternative method for resolving disputes outside of court proceedings. The bench held that if a party involved in a dispute chooses to pursue arbitration independently under the Arbitration and...

Arbitrator Justified In Treating Loan Admission In Correspondence As Admitted Claim Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that when a party makes a clear admission of owing a loan in its contemporaneous correspondence, the arbitrator is justified in treating it as an admitted claim under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The bench noted that the purpose of this rule is to allow a party to secure a...

Composite Reference Can't Be Made Of Disparate Causes Of Action: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that composite reference to an Arbitral Tribunal cannot be made for disparate causes of action in different agreements with different parties as it contravenes the principles of privity, confidentiality, and party autonomy. Background: The Petitioner, the Secretary of Ganaudyog Bazar Unnayan...

Arbitration | Application To Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award Maintainable Even After Expiry Of Period Under S.29A(4) : Supreme Court

In an important ruling concerning the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court today held that an application for extending the time for passing of an arbitral award can be filed even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.“we hold that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with...