High Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Entertain Applications Under Section 29A For Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of has held the High Court, not being a Court within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 29A. Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act states that if the award is not made within the period specified of six months or the extended period of parties' mutual consent, any...

Settlement Of Dispute By Expert Is Not Arbitration, No Intention To Submit To Independent Arbitrator: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that a clause laying down the settlement of the dispute by an expert cannot be said to be an arbitration clause. The bench held that an arbitral tribunal arrives at its decision on the evidence and submissions of the parties and must apply the law. It held that an expert, unless it is agreed otherwise, makes his own...

Arbitration Clause Valid Despite Even Number Of Arbitrators: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the arbitration clause is not invalidated merely on the ground that the number of arbitrators, as per the arbitration clause, was an even number and therefore, was in contravention of Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 states that the...

[Arbitration Act] Mere Sending of Notice Under Section 21 Not Enough, Receipt of Notice Essential: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that merely sending notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not sufficient. It held that receipt of the notice is the prerequisite for the commencement of arbitration proceedings. Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: "21. Commencement...

Arbitration Requires Dispute Arising From Agreement, Unrelated Disputes Ineligible for Arbitration: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that arbitration hinges on the presence of a dispute arising from the agreement between the involved parties. The bench held that any dispute unrelated to the terms of the agreement between the parties cannot be subject to the arbitration clause and therefore cannot be referred to arbitration under the...

Mere Initiation Of Arbitration Proceedings Doesn't Bar Corporate Debtor From Pursing Remedies Under IBC: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that mere initiation of the arbitration proceedings does not bar the corporate debtor from pursuing his other remedies including those under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code. Brief Facts: The Respondents, who were the founders/promoters of Petitioner No.1, approached OFB Tech Private Limited and Petitioner No.2 with...

[Arbitration Act] Court Should Not Issue Broad Injunctions Under Section 9 If Dispute Involves Monetary Claim: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni has held that while passing interim order or taking interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is required to have a prima-facie grasp of the dispute and claim of the parties. The bench held that the court should look at the nature of the controversy...

[Arbitration Act] Non-Disclosure Of Section 9 Petition In Another Matter Can't Be Termed As 'Egregious Fraud': Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that non-disclosure of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in another matter cannot be termed as a case of egregious fraud, which would disentitle a party from pursuing its petition under Section 9. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

Arbitration Weekly Roundup: 03rd June 2024 To 09th June 2024

Delhi High Court [Arbitration Act] Section 29A Allows Extension Requests Even After Arbitrator's Mandate Expires: Delhi High Court Case Title: Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 120/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Substitute Co-Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed Under Section 15(2) Of Arbitration Act After Mandate Termination By Operation of Law: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a substitute Co-Arbitrator cannot be appointed under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) when an arbitrator's mandate is terminated by the operation of law.Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal presiding over the case, stated, "As discussed above, this is not a case of withdrawal from the office by the Arbitrator, but rather...

[Arbitration Act] Section 29A Allows Extension Requests Even After Arbitrator's Mandate Expires: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not preclude the consideration of applications for extension of the arbitrator's mandate filed after the expiration of the mandate. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) and filed a petition under Section 29A of...

Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 26th May 2024 To 2nd June 2024

Delhi High Court [Arbitration Act] Awarding Interest Rate Is Discretion Of Arbitrator, Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Space 4 Business Solution Pvt Ltd Vs The Divisional Commissioner Principal Secretary And Anr. Case Number: ARB.P. 360/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is...