Disputes Exceeding Rent Control Act Threshold Are Arbitrable If Lease Agreement Includes Arbitration Clause: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that when the total monthly payable amount surpasses the threshold for invoking the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the dispute becomes subject to arbitration if the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause. Further, the bench held that in a petition filed under Section 11 of the...

Referral Court Under Section 11 Can't Decide The Arbitrability of Non-Notified Claim: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding a Section 11 application, has held that a referral court under Section 11 cannot examine the arbitrability of non-notified claims. After the SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning judgment, the arbitral tribunal will decide on the arbitrability of disputes. Facts: The appellant and respondent entered...

Tossing Award File From One Table To Other By State Not Enough To Condone Delay ; Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that the explanation for the delay in filing objections under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is insufficient to justify condoning the delay if it appears that the file was merely tossed from one table to the other by the State. Brief Facts: The objectors/applicants, State...

Contempt Proceedings Inappropriate For Resolving Complex Disputed Factual Issues: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the contempt proceedings are not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed factual issues such as conducting a detailed accounting analysis to determine the fairness or justification of accounting practices. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to contempt petitions which were filed under Section 12 of the Contempt...

All Arbitration Proceedings Must Be Filed In Court With Jurisdiction Over The Arbitral Seat: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once the arbitral seat is established, all proceedings, including the initial ones, must be filed only in the court that has jurisdiction over the arbitral seat. The bench held that no other Court is authorized to handle any matters related to the arbitration. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to an objection...

Party Ignores Section 21 Notice; Should Seek Court Intervention, Arbitrator Can't Unilaterally Summon Parties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that if a party seeking arbitration faces a situation where the opposing party does not respond to a Section 21 notice or refuses to agree to arbitration, the only recourse is to approach the Court under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, depending on the...

Mere Arbitration Clause In Invoices Insufficient, Express Or Implicit Acceptance Of Terms Of Invoices Necessary: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that simply including an arbitration clause in invoices does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement. The High Court held that since the applicant neither expressly nor implicitly accepted the terms of the invoices, it could not be deemed to be bound by any arbitration agreement. The bench held: “They...

Arbitration Clause In Original Lease Deed Incorporated Into Deed Of Assignment When Deeds Are Interconnected And Consistent: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment. The bench held that interrelationship was not merely superficial...

The Arbitral Tribunal May Implead A Non-Signatory To The Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) has held in the affirmative whether the arbitral tribunal may implead a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in the proceedings. Following the ratio in Cox and Kings Ltd v. Sap India Pvt Ltd (Cox and Kings II), it observed that whether a non-signatory is bound by...

Non-Compliance With Share Purchase Agreement; Arbitrability Of Dispute Must Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal, Not By Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that argument claiming the dispute is non-arbitrable due to non-compliance with the Share Purchase Agreement cannot be addressed by the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that such aspects need to be addressed by the arbitral tribunal. Brief Facts: The...

Section 11 Can't Be Entertained Without A Notice Under Section 21 of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe has held that a valid notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a mandatory requirement for invoking arbitration, and its absence renders an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Act non-maintainable. Brief Facts: The parties entered into a Franchise Agreement on...

Arbitrator Can't Assume Arbitral Seat Without Clear Agreement From Parties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that parties in arbitration can agree to an arbitral seat at a neutral location, different from where the contract was executed, the work was carried out, or the arbitration proceedings were conducted. However, such a decision must first reflect mutual agreement and, secondly, must be documented, either...