Arbitration
Agreement On The Name Of The Arbitrator Would Not Amount To A Waiver Of Notice Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court
The High Court of Bombay has held that simply because the arbitration agreement provides for the name of the arbitrator, the same would not amount to a waiver of notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar has held that the use of the word "Unless otherwise agreed by the parties" in Section 21 means that the parties can dispense with...
The Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Reduce The Liquidated Damages On 'Guess Work': Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held the arbitral tribunal cannot reduce the liquidated damages on 'guesswork' if it finds that it is genuine pre-estimated damages and it is not possible to quantify the damages. The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru held that once the arbitrator finds that the employer has suffered substantial losses due to the fault of the contractor and the contract...
Arbitral Award Not Hit By Adequacy Facet If Reasons Given Are Not Laconic: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award cannot be set aside on the ground of non-adequacy of reasons as long as the reasons given are not laconic. The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar ruled that being 'tersely eloquent' is not alien to judgment writing. A contract was awarded to the respondent M/s Progressive-Aliens by the petitioner Southern Railways for...
Section 34 Proceedings Are Summary In Nature; Does Not Permit Additional Evidence To Be Filed Unless Absolutely Necessary: Madras High Court
The High Court of Madras has held that the challenge proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act are summary in nature, therefore, the same shall be decided based on the record that was available with the arbitral tribunal and no additional document shall be permitted to be brought in at that stage unless absolutely warranted. The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar further held...
Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Overrides The Seat Clause In An Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has given primacy to an exclusive jurisdiction clause over the seat clause in an arbitration agreement. The Court held that when a clause confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court other than the seat court, then only the court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred shall decide all the applications arising out of the arbitration...
Arbitration Involving Third Parties And Leading To Other Proceedings - Not Arbitrable : Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that reference of a dispute to arbitration cannot be allowed if it would lead to splitting up of the cause of action and cause determination on matters which were not contemplated for arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad held that there cannot be a complete adjudication of the claimant's rights unless the third parties were...
Group Of Companies Doctrine Can Be Applied To Bind Non Signatory To An Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday (27 April 2022), explained the 'Group of companies' doctrine which postulates that an arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated,...
Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration In Absence Of Privity Of Contract: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has ruled that in the absence of a privity of contract parties cannot be referred to arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the word 'party' under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) has been given a definite meaning with respect to an arbitration agreement. The Court added that only the disputes between...
Merely Because An Application Under Section 7 Of IBC Is Filed, It Is Not An Embargo On The Court Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court
The High Court of Bombay has held that merely because an application under S.7 of IBC is filed before the adjudicating authority which is pending consideration does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application filed under S. 11 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni has held that an application filed under S.7 of the IBC creates an...
Supreme Court To Examine Conflicting Decisions On Retrospective Impact Of 2015 Amendment To Section 11(6) Arbitration Act
The Supreme Court has decided to examine whether Section 11(6) as amended by the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment Act), 2015 ("2015 Amendment Act") would be applicable to arbitral proceedings commenced before the Court prior to the 2015 Amendment came into force on 23.10.2015, or the cases wherein notice was issued prior to 23.10.2015 or cases where notice invoking arbitration...
Arbitral Tribunal Can Grant Post Award Interest On Interest Component Included In The Sum Of The Award: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Mr. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that the arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on the sum of the award which also includes the interest component. The Court reiterated that the word sum used under Section 31(7) of the A&C Act includes the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would...
Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Submit Particulars of All Pending Section 11(6) Applications
The Supreme Court, on April 21, asked its Registry to seek particulars of the pending applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from all High Courts. It noted that the same shall reach the Apex Court by 06.05.2021. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna was hearing a plea assailing the order dated 30.06.20202 passed by the...