Arbitration | Absence Of Monetary Claim In Section 21 Notice Doesn't Negate Existence Of Dispute: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that due to the broad interpretation of the term "dispute," the court cannot definitively conclude that no dispute exists between the parties, even in the absence of a monetary claim by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section...

The Benefit Of Section 14 Of The Limitation Act Can Be Invoked For Exclusion Of Time In A Proceeding Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the time spent in a writ petition on the same cause of action can be excluded from the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: Baid Power Services Private...

Twelve-Month Period For Arbitral Award Begins From Completion Of Pleadings, Not Statement Of Defense: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when read with Section 29A(4), implies that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates if the tribunal does not issue the award within twelve months of completing the pleadings under Section 23(4). The bench held that the twelve-month period is to...

Arbitration | Courts At Referral Stage Must Not Enter Into Contested Questions Involving Complex Facts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (Sep.9) reiterated that once there exists a valid arbitration agreement, than it would not be justifiable for the referral courts at the referral stage to venture into contested questions involving complex facts.Emphasizing upon the doctrine of competence-competence enshrined under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), the Court said...

Order In Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Based On Settlement Is Enforceable As Decree : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree in accordance with Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 36 of the CPC pertains to the "Application to orders" and addresses the execution of decrees and orders....

The Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Re-interpret Contracts While Examining Patent Illegality : Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence under the guise of patent illegality, as per the proviso to Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It remarked that the Court cannot be sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's decision and cannot re-interpret the contract differently from...

Arbitral Tribunal Is Final Decision-Maker; Court Interference Only For Perverse Or Implausible Awards: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court divison bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that Arbitral Tribunal serves as the ultimate decision-maker on all matters. The bench held that interference by the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only warranted if the Tribunal's decision is deemed perverse...

Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that allegations of a party's signature on an arbitration agreement being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation are matters that can be decided by the arbitrator and can't be resolved by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench further observed that the...

Arbitrator's Discussion On Claims And Costs Exceeds Jurisdiction If Not As Per Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that if an arbitrator concludes that she was not appointed according to the arbitration clause, then any discussion on the merits of the claims and the award of costs against the Respondents exceeds the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition which challenged an arbitral award...

Commercial Courts Empowered To Hear Commercial Original Petition Arising From Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarsini has held that commercial courts are competent courts to hear the Commercial Original Petition arising from Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in terms of specified value, territorial jurisdiction and the nature of the dispute i.e.,...

Administrative Delays Insufficient To Justify 950-Day Delay In Section 34 Appeal Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has held that the administrative reason alone cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 950 days in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that delays attributable to administrative factors, such as changes in project management or internal procedural adjustments, do...

Administrative Lethargy Of Government Machinery Not Valid Ground For Delay Condonation In Arbitration Appeals: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that nature of administrative lethargy of the Government machinery is not a satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay in submitting an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: Union of India filed an application before the High Court for condonation of...