Sec 151 CPC Application Not Maintainable When Sect 29A(4) Of Arbitration Act Applies, Incorrect Quote Of Section Not Grounds For Dismissal: HP High Court

The Himachal High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that an application under Section 151 of the CPC is not maintainable when a specific provision exists under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extending the time of arbitration proceedings. However, the bench also held that the application cannot be dismissed solely because it cited...

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Decision To Deny Pre-Reference, Pendente Lite Interest for Project Delay

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that it is reasonable for an arbitrator to deny pre-reference and pendente lite interest when the applicant is partially responsible for delays in completing the project. The bench held that interpreting a contract and determining claims based on that interpretation fall within the arbitral...

Arbitral Tribunal Is Master of Evidence, Delhi High Court Upholds Award Against Railways

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that when an arbitrator delivers an Arbitral Award, the assessment of the quality and quantity of evidence presented to her must be respected, and any reasonable conclusion drawn by the arbitrator based on the facts should be upheld. The bench held that that the Arbitral Tribunal is...

Court Acquires Jurisdiction Under Section 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Immediately On Default Of Pre-Arbitral Or Arbitral Procedure: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that court acquires jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 immediately on the default, of either party, in adhering to the pre-arbitral or arbitral procedure envisaged in the contract. Section 11(6) provides that if a party fails to appoint an arbitrator, or if the...

Discovery And Inspection Orders By Arbitral Tribunal Are Not Interim Awards If They Do Not Resolve Disputed Issues: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that an order by arbitral tribunal addressing applications related to the discovery and inspection of documents does not constitute an interim award if it does not resolve a matter at issue between the parties. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition filed under Section 34 of the...

Duty Of Every Arbitral Tribunal & Court To Examine What The Contract Provides : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that the courts and arbitral tribunals have the duty to examine the contract clauses in proceedings concerning arbitration.While upholding Calcutta High Court's decision to set aside the arbitrator's decision to award the amount for loss due to idle machinery and labour despite it being prohibited under the contract, the Court said : “In fact,...

Allegations Of Fraud And Time-Barred Claims Must Be Addressed By Arbitral Tribunal, Not Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that issues such as allegations of fraud and claims that the applicant's claims are time-barred must be addressed by the arbitral tribunal rather than the court. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which sought the reference of a dispute...

Section 34 Challenge Unwarranted If Arbitrator's Judgment Is Well-Reasoned And Based On Evidence: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if an Arbitrator's judgment is well-reasoned and backed by substantial evidence, there are no grounds to challenge it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a dispute between BLA Projects Private Limited (the claimant/respondent) and...

Excise Duty Disputes Non-Arbitrable Only When Involving Sovereign Functions Including Determination Of Tax Rate Or Liability: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a dispute regarding excise duty is only non-arbitrable when it involves a sovereign function, such as determining tax liability or the rate at which duty must be paid to revenue authorities. The bench clarified that this issue is separate from the dispute which concerns whether the claimant is obligated to pay...

Court's Role Under Section 11(5) Or 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Limited To Verifying Arbitration Agreement And Timely Filing: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held when a Court exercises jurisdiction under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it has to only ensure the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and to confirm that the petition under these sections has been filed within three years of the service of a Section...

Government Entities Must Also Be Viewed Equally In Delay Condonation Applications Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that a government entity should also be seen from an egalitarian perspective while considering application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that while government agencies are not granted undue favor as litigants, there...

Grounds For Challenging Arbitral Awards Narrower Under 1940 Act Compared To 1996 Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the grounds for challenging an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act of 1940 are more limited compared to those under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The High Court considered the grounds enumerated under Section 34 of the 1996 Act which allow for a challenge if a party was incapacitated,...