Arbitration Monthly Round Up: May 2024

Supreme Court Arbitrator's Power Under Section 32(2)(c) Can Be Exercised Only If Continuation Of Proceedings Has Become Unnecessary Or Impossible: Supreme Court Case Title: Dani Wooltex Corporation & Ors. vs SheilProperties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024 The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that...

Duty Of Courts To Examine And Reject Time Barred Claims To Prevent Parties From Being Drawn Into Costly Arbitration Processes: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that it is the duty of courts to examine and reject time-barred claims to prevent parties from being trapped in protracted and costly arbitration processes. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court (“High Court”) and filed an application Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Ministry Of Finance Pushes For Mediation Over Arbitration In Domestic Public Procurement Contracts

The Department of Expenditure under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, has recently released guidelines delineating the use of arbitration and mediation in domestic public procurement contracts. The guidelines recommended the restriction of arbitration to disputes with a value less than Rs. 10 crore. Further, it states that government departments/ entities/ agencies should...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Facilitation Council Award For Lack Of Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 19 MSME Act

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the Zonal Micro and Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Meerut Zone, Meerut under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as the petitioners, Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited and others, had refused to make the mandatory...

Interest For Prereference Period And Pendente Lite Interest Can't Be Claimed Under Arbitration Act, 1940: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that interest for the prereference period as well as the pendente lite interest cannot be claimed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The bench held that when pre-suit interest, pendente lite interest and future interest has to be awarded on the principal sum adjudged, the interest can be awarded only on the principal...

[Arbitration Act] General Explanation Of Intra-departmental Analysis And Discussions Doesn't Constitute Credible Explanation For Delay In Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a general explanation of intra-departmental analysis and discussions doesn't constitute as valid and credible explanation for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The Appellant approached the Delhi High Court...

Delhi High Court Imposes Costs Of Rs. 50,000 For Unnecessarily Challenging And Questioning Of Arbitrator's Mandate

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on a party for unnecessarily challenging and questioning the mandate of the arbitrator. The bench held that the party's intent was to create a stale mate. It held that repeated interventions of the court in arbitral proceedings are to be avoided and parties cannot force the arbitrators to...

[Arbitration Act] Party Can't Challenge Procedural Order Passed By Arbitrator Under Section 9: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that a party is not permitted to challenge a procedural order passed by an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that: “…it is observed that by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 the Petitioner is merely attempting to avoid the appellate...

Jharkhand High Court Dismisses JUVNL's Appeal, Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment In Dispute With M/s Rites

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL) challenging the writ court's order to appoint a sole arbitrator in its dispute with M/s Rites.The Court emphasized that it is the High Court's duty to reject petitions or defenses based on purely technical grounds aimed at gaining an unfair advantage.The Division Bench, comprising Acting...

Once Arbitration Agreement Is Confirmed, Court Should Refrain From Delving Into Other Issues: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the role of the court is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that once the court confirms that the arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from delving into other issues, which are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.Brief Facts:The Petitioner was awarded a contract for...

[Arbitration Act] Arbitrator Obligated U/S 31(5) To Deliver Signed Copies Of Award To Parties, Irrespective Of No Specific Requests: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the arbitrator is obligated to deliver signed copies of arbitral award to each party to the arbitration. It has been held that irrespective of the fact that no specific request has been made by the parties for certified copy of the award, the arbitrator must deliver the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,...

Determination Of Delay On Part Of Contractor Is Not 'Excepted Matter', Only Quantum Of Damages Is Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the question of determination of whether indeed, there was a delay on the part of the Contractor is not an excepted matter and it is only the quantum of damages which is non-arbitrable. The bench held that: “….the question of determination of delay, is not an excepted matter and has to be necessarily arbitrated...