Supreme Court's Interpretation Of 'Three Months' As 90 Days In Section 34(3) Of Arbitration Act As Obiter Dicta, Not Ratio Decidendi: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta has held that the Supreme Court's observations regarding the interpretation of "three months" in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as 90 days in various cases were not the ratio decidendi but obiter dicta. The bench held that the period of limitation must be computed based on calendar months,...

Composite Reference To Arbitration Necessary When Dispute Involves Same Subject Matter: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held allowed composite reference of two companies to arbitration noting that the two arbitration agreement refer to the self-same demised property. Moreover, it noted that both the agreements were entered into by the same proposed lessee with two co-owners of the self-same property. The bench held...

Arbitration Weekly Roundup: July 08 - July 14, 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...

Delhi High Court Dismisses Reliance Communications' Petition, Upholds Arbitrator's Calculation Of Call Minutes Based on Total Call Seconds

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has dismissed a petition filed by Reliance Communications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the arbitrator correctly divided the total number of call seconds by 60 to determine the number of call minutes. The bench noted that the company is not entitled to a whole minute if the call...

2063 Crore Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court Directs West Bengal Government, WBIDC To Pay Amount

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Krishna Rao has rejected the petition made under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the West Bengal Government and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation claiming fraud in making of the arbitral award. The bench noted that the arbitral tribunal arrived upon the findings after considering the materials placed before...

Arbitrator Not Required To Provide Detailed Reasons When Granting Request To Summon Witnesses Under Section 27(1) of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that while exercising power under Section 27(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant a request to summon a witness, the arbitrator is not required to offer detailed reasons when granting such a request. Section 27(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows the arbitral tribunal or a...

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...