Non-Response To Demands Invalidates Invocation of Mutual Negotiations Clause in Arbitration Agreements: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that if a party didn't respond to the demands and requests made by the other party, it can't invoke the part of the arbitration clause that such disputes and differences shall be an endeavoured to be resolved by mutual negotiations as a condition precedent for invoking the...

MSMED Act Prevail Over Arbitration Act, Seller Can Approach Facilitation Council Even In Presence Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy held that the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006 will prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that even if parties have an arbitration agreement, if the seller falls under the purview of the MSMED, it has the right to seek resolution through the designated authority for...

Arbitrator Involved In Another Dispute Between Same Parties Is Not Automatically Disqualified: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice R. Devdas has held that prior involvement as an arbitrator in a dispute or multiple appointments by one of the parties or its affiliate does not automatically disqualify an individual from serving as an arbitrator in subsequent cases. The crucial factor lies in the arbitrator's ability to demonstrate independence and impartiality in...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: June 2024

Supreme Court High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425 The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power...

Section 11 Of Arbitration Act Mandates Examination Of Written, Signed Arbitration Clauses As Per Section 7 Requirements: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has held that in Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is required to see whether there is an arbitration clause which as per section 7 should be a document in writing signed by the parties. The bench held where the existence of the arbitration agreement is undisputed by...

Chief Justice Or Their Designate Cannot Adjudicate Merits Of Dispute Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that it is completely beyond the domain of the Chief Justice and/or his designate, sitting in jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate even prima facie on the merits of an arguable issue involved in the matter, which would fall categorically within the domain...

Take Steps To Avoid Delays In Filing Arbitration Appeals: Allahabad High Court To State's Principal Law Secretary

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Principal Secretary (Law), Uttar Pradesh to take steps to avoid delays in filing arbitration appeals beyond statutory limitations by the State Government and submit a report on the actions taken in this regard within 6 months.While deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the Government of Uttar...

Arbitration Weekly Roundup: June 24 - June 30, 2024

Delhi High Court Objections Regarding Time-Barred Claims Under Section 11 Petition Should Be Left For Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court Case Title: Capri Global Capital Limited Vs Ms Kiran Case Number: ARB.P. 870/2023 and I.A. 16066/2023 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held for the purposes of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration...

Section 9 IBC Petition Does Not Bar Arbitration Under Section 11(6) Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe has held that the mere filing of such petition under Section 9 of IBC before NCLT does not bar initiation of proceeding under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that there is no statutory provision which bars a party from initiating the proceeding under Section 11 of the...

Arbitration Weekly Roundup: June 17 - June 23, 2024

Delhi High Court Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor Case Number: ARB.P. 882/2022 The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal...

Limitation Period For Arbitration Starts From Date When Cause Of Action Accrued: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash has held that the period of limitation for commencing arbitration runs from the date when the cause of arbitration accrued. This means from the date when the claimant first acquired the right to either take action or require arbitration. Therefore, the bench held that the limitation period for starting arbitration matches the...

No Reappreciation Of Evidence Permitted Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act, Arbitrator's Views Must Be Respected: Orissa High Court

The Orrisa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash held that in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reappreciating evidence is not allowed in order to replace the arbitrator's view with another. It held that the views expressed by the arbitrator must be considered as possible interpretations based on the factual circumstances. Section 34 deals...