Lis Pendens Principle Applies To Property Acquired During Section 9 Arbitration Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that an individual who acquires property that is the subject of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subject to the principle of lis pendens. The issue before the High Court was whether the transaction was affected by the principle of lis pendens...

Arbitrators Must Separately Calculate Fees For Claims And Counterclaims In Ad Hoc Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has set aside computration of fee by an arbitration on the basis decision in Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd which was later set aside in ONGC Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723. The bench held that in ad hoc arbitration, the arbitrator must calculate fees separately for claims and...

Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked In View Of Arbitration Clause Except For Specific Circumstances: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the presence of an arbitration clause, except under specific circumstances. The bench observed that the Petitioner did not demonstrate a violation of fundamental rights, principles of natural justice, or that the proceedings were without...

Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator & Non Service Of Notice : Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has set aside an arbitral award where the opposite party proceeded with arbitration unilaterally and appointed the Arbitrator without any intimation to the claimants. Further, the claimants neither received notices of hearing nor appeared before the Tribunal, and consequently, the Arbitrator did not afford any opportunity...

Arbitrator's Award For Compensation For Excess Work And Business Loss Without Sufficient Evidence Is Perverse, Contrary To Fundamental Policy: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the arbitrator's decision to award compensation to the claimant for excess work and business loss, without sufficient evidence to support these claims, is perverse and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to an arbitral award that granted monetary claims...

Article 23A Of Schedule I-A Of Stamp Act Applies To Agreements To Sell Under Section 53A Of Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C.Hari Shankar has held that Article 23A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act applicable in Delhi covers Agreement to Sell to which Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) applies. Section 53A of the TPA is designed to protect a transferee who has part performed a contract for the transfer of immovable property. To avail of this...

Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Can't Be Used To Seek Re-Litigation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a “second bite at the arbitral cherry”.The bench further held that under Section 34 the court cannot...

Arbitration| Judge Hearing Sec.34 Application Must Apply Mind To Grounds Of Challenge: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 26) stressed fon the need for High Courts to ensure that orders dealing with challenges to arbitral awards precisely reflect adequate application of judicial mind on the merits of the case. The Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the order of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court which has set...

Petition Under Section 34 Not Maintainable Against Rejection Of Application Under Section 16 By Arbitrator: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee has held a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable against the order of rejection of the application under Section 16 challenging challenging the jurisdiction of an arbitrator on the plea of res judicata and bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.Order 2 Rule...

Telangana HC Explains Section 31(7)(A) And (B) Of The A&C Act,1996 In Terms Of Timeframes, Embargo & Discretion

The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M. G. Priyadarsini has held the arbitral tribunal has full authority to award interest from the date of the award until the date of payment, regardless of any contrary decision by the parties. If the award is silent on the rate of interest, the award holder is entitled to an interest rate 2% higher than...

Non-Signatories Can Be Included In Arbitration Beyond Group Company Ties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held the inclusion of a non-signatory in arbitral proceedings is not solely dependent on the non-signatory being part of the same group of companies as the signatory.The bench further clarified that a non-signatory can be included in arbitration if there is a contractual relationship that makes the non-signatory partially or...

Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Part Of Award Dealing With Non-Arbitrable Dispute

The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes regarding works undertaken by party independent of the contract which contains the arbitration agreement cannot be determined under such arbitration agreement.Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 provides that a party is bound to compensate the other party for the work done by the latter party when there was no intention to do the...