Arbitration
Coercion In Disputes Must Be Examined By Arbitral Tribunal, Referral Court's Jurisdiction Limited By Section 11(6A): Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that coercion, or its absence in a dispute is a complex question, purely of fact, which has necessarily to be examined by the arbitral tribunal. The bench held that with the introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the jurisdiction of the referral court is now circumscribed. Consequently, the High Court appointed...
Invoices Containing Arbitration Clauses Which Show Mutual Acceptance Are Prima Facie Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that when parties engage in actions based on invoices containing arbitration clauses, demonstrating mutual acceptance, an arbitration agreement may be inferred directly from those invoices. Brief Facts: M/s Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt Ltd (Petitioner), a manufacturer and supplier of corrugated boxes and...
Specific Reference To Arbitration Clause Needed In 'Two-Contract Case' For Incorporation: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in a 'two-contract case', a specific reference to the arbitration clause in an earlier contract is necessary for its incorporation into the main contract between the parties. A 'two-contract case' refers to a situation where there are two separate contracts involved and the parties seek to incorporate terms, including...
Arbitrator Panel Restricting Nominee Selection To Railways' Officers and Suggested Names Is Not Valid: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that panel comprising of serving or retired officers of Railways not only restricted the party's choice but also compelled it to choose its nominee from amongst four names suggested by the Railways. The bench noted that such a panel is not in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for...
Disputes Related To Lock-In Periods In Employment Contracts Are Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court held that the three-year lock-in period did not constitute an unreasonable curtailment of the employees' right to employment and did not...
Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement Invalidated By Subsequent Verbal Agreement: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the arbitration clause in a lease agreement ceases to exist if the lease terminates and a new verbal tenancy agreement is established. The bench noted that: “….but since previous agreement was replaced and substituted by an oral agreement, defendant cannot be permitted to fall back upon any of the term contained in...
Arbitration Clauses Require Explicit Reference In Subsequent Agreements: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that for an arbitration clause to be enforceable in subsequent agreements, it must be explicitly referenced within those agreements. The bench noted that the subsequent agreement in the dispute contained a specific exclusion of the arbitration clause. The bench held that: “Both the parties have agreed to the said...
Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Arbitration Clause As Unconstitutional, Upholds Subcontractor's Right To Independent Dispute Resolution
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has struck part of the arbitration clause as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The clause prevented the subcontractor from participating in arbitration proceedings despite having to bear the expenses for its claims. Further, it allowed the Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) to unilaterally decide whether...
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due To Arbitrator Relying On Non-Executed Agreement, Adopting Non-Judicial Approach
The Bombay High Court set-aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as the Arbitrator relied on a non-executed agreement for arriving at the decision. The Court stated that it can annul an arbitral award under Section 34 if the arbitrator adopted a non-judicial approach. The Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and...
[Arbitration Act] Retroactive Application Of Judicial Decisions To Arbitral Awards Would Create Legal & Procedural Chaos: Allahabad High Court
Elucidating on the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Ors 2019, the Allahabad High Court has held that “retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos.”For context, in Tarsem Singh (supra), the Apex Court held that the provisions regarding solatium and interest provided in the...
S. 4 Limitation Act Can't Be Invoked Using 30-Day Extension For Arbitration Appeals Filed Beyond 3-Months From Award: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that if an arbitral award is challenged beyond the three-month limitation, the benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act will not be available. The Court held that the 30-day extension period mentioned in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be included in the "prescribed period" in Section 4 of the Limitation...
Even Without Further Allegation Of Bias Under Section 12(5) Of Arbitration Act, Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is Ineligible: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even a unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, without any further allegation of bias under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, renders the Arbitrator ineligible. The bench held that in addition to the grounds specifically mentioned in Section 12(5) read with the Seventh...