Arbitration
Writ Petition Is Not Maintainable To Enforce The Arbitral Award: Madras High Court
The High Court of Madras observed that a writ petition cannot be filed to enforce an arbitral award when an alternative remedy is available under S. 36 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that the A&C Act is a complete code in itself and envisages minimum judicial intervention. If further observed that if the Courts are allowed to...
Failure To Issue Notice For Additional Payment Does Not Preclude The Contractor From Later Claiming It In Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has observed that the failure of the contractor to issue notice under the contract does not deprive him of his right to claim additional payment before the arbitral tribunal. The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru also observed that such a stipulation in the contract is not a mandatory provision but only directory in nature and must be examined with reference to...
Dissenting Views Of Minority Members Does Not Constitute An Arbitral Award: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal can pass only one arbitral award and not multiple awards. The Bench, consisting of Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha, ruled that the dissenting views of the minority member(s) of an Arbitral Tribunal does not constitute an Arbitral Award, and the dissenting views cannot be made the basis of a proceeding under Section...
Scope Of Section 9 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Extended To Enforcement Of The Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) cannot be extended to enforcement of the arbitral award or granting the fruits of the award to the award holder as an interim measure. The Single Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the right to withdraw the amount deposited by the award debtor, pursuant...
Petition Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act Is Not Maintainable Against The Order By Arbitral Tribunal On Arbitration Fees: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures of protection, is not maintainable before the Court against the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, held that the procedural orders passed by...
Arbitral Award A Nullity If Passed Beyond Prescribed Period: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) are cast in mandatory terms and the mandate of the arbitrator terminates under Section 29A(4) after the expiry of the prescribed period, making the arbitrator functus-officio and the award passed by him a nullity. The Bench, consisting of Justice P. Naveen...
Writ Petition Is Maintainable Against The Award Of The MSME Council Which Failed To Give A Hearing On Limitation : Orissa High Court
The High Court of Orissa has observed that a writ petition is maintainable against an award rendered by the MSME Council under S. 18 of the MSMED Act wherein the petitioner was not given a hearing on a material issue regarding the limitation of the substantive claims. The Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha has observed that in cases where an award is passed without hearing a party,...
On Procedural Aspects The Arbitration Act Must Yield To The Provisions Of The Commercial Courts Act: Orissa High Court
The High Court of Orissa has observed that the Court for the purpose of deciding all the applications arising out of the arbitration agreement between the parties would be the Commercial Court as defined under the Commercial Courts Act which need not necessarily be the Principal Civil Court as provided under the Arbitration Act. The Court observed that the jurisdiction of the...
Provisions Of The MSMED Act Overrides The Arbitration Agreement Between The Parties: Madras High Court
The High Court of Madras has observed that S. 18 of the MSMED Act will override the arbitration clause between the parties. The Court observed that since S. 24 of the MSMED Act is a non-obstante clause, it gives overriding effect to the provisions of S. 15 -23 of the Act. The Bench of Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayan and Justice P. Velmurgan observed that once a reference is filed before...
Sufficiency Of Stamp Duty On Agreement And Nature Of Contract Cannot Be Adjudicated By Court Under Section 11 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Court cannot adjudicate on the issue whether the claims made by the petitioner are barred by limitation while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for referring the parties to arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the dispute as to whether the...
The Dispute Between The Parties Which Arises Subsequently Can Be Proceeded In A Separate Arbitration: High Court of Delhi
The High Court of Delhi has observed that a subsequent dispute arising from the same transaction can be referred to a separate arbitration and the arbitration agreement cannot be said to be a one-time measure that cannot be invoked after an award is made in the earlier reference. The Single Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta observed that the word "all disputes" in an arbitration...
Tax Invoices Containing Reference To Arbitration, Does Not Constitute An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that acceptance of tax invoices by the opposite party, containing a reference to arbitration, does not lead to the presumption that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that unilateral invoices cannot bring about an arbitration agreement between the parties. The respondent S...