Pre-Arb Step(s) Cannot Be Treated As Mandatory If Could Not Be Fructified: Rajasthan High Court

The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal at the Rajasthan High Court opined that where pre-arbitration steps mentioned in the agreement could not be fructified, it could not be held that those were mandatory in nature and in the event of failure of these no arbitration could be initiated. The Court held that it was a well settled principle of law that an arbitration agreement being a commercial...

Section 29A Time Limit Does Not Apply To Arbitral Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that time limit under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable to arbitral proceedings “commenced” as per Section 21 prior to 2015 amendment. The bench held the “commencement” of proceedings is the relevant yardstick for determining applicability of the Section 29A after 2015 amendment...

Court Has Power To Grant Anti-Enforcement Injunction Against Proceedings In Foreign Court Which Threaten Arbitral Process Initiated In India: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that when proceedings in a foreign court, or a decree issued by a foreign court, threaten the arbitral process that may be initiated in India, the court has the authority under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to restrain the party from continuing with the foreign proceedings or enforcing the...

Commercial Division Of High Court Can Hear Applications And Appeals Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 Filed On Original Side: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even if an application or appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to a commercial dispute is filed on the Original Side of the High Court, the same can be heard and disposed by the Commercial Division of the High Court. The bench held that: “The language used in Section 10(2)...

No Independent Dispute Redressal Institution Recognised By Government In Kolkata, Parties Should Approach Court Under Section 11 For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that SAMA, an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform, is not an independent Dispute Redressal Institution duly recognized by the Government of India in Kolkata. Therefore, the bench held that party should approach the court for the appointment of an arbitrator in view...

Party Cannot Invoke Arbitration After Voluntarily Submitting To Court's Jurisdiction During Proceedings: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice J. C. Doshi has held that whether a party has waived their right to seek arbitration and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court depends on the party's conduct during the suit. However, the bench held that the legal principle remains that an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be filed...

Which Court Can Extend Arbitration Deadlines? Bombay High Court Provides Clarification

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes has held that when the High Court constitutes an arbitral tribunal, the High Court holds the jurisdiction to extend the time for completing the arbitration process. Further, the bench clarified that if the tribunal was constituted through an agreement between the parties, the application for extending time...

Breaches Of Undertaking Given Before Court Or Arbitral Tribunal Shouldn't Be Pursued Under Contempt Of Courts Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharmab has held that breaches of undertakings given before a Court, or an Arbitral Tribunal should not be pursued under the Contempt of Courts Act. Instead, the High Court held that proper course of action is to seek enforcement of the arbitral award. Brief Facts: Index Hospitality Limited (Petitioner) sought to initiate...

High Court Doesn't Qualify As Civil Court Under Section 2(1)(e) Of Arbitration Act, Has Jurisdiction Under Section 11(6): Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has held that the High Court itself does not qualify as a Civil Court under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, the High Court held that it has jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, which grants it authority where the principal Civil Court...

Arbitration Clause In Partnership Firm's Agreement Remains Valid If Assets And Liabilities Transferred To Private Limited Company: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has held that an arbitration clause in a partnership firm's agreement remains valid if a private limited company has taken over all the firm's assets and liabilities. The High Court held that this arrangement can be inferred from both the dissolution deed of the partnership firm and in the company's Memorandum...

Arbitral Award Can Be Enforced Anywhere In Country Where Decree Is Executable: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal has held that an award could be enforced through its execution in any location within the country where the decree could be executed. The High Court held that it is unnecessary to obtain a transfer of the decree from the Court that had jurisdiction over the arbitral...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: July 2024

Supreme Court Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445 Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) called upon the Bar to urge only the legally permissible grounds in the arbitration proceedings...