Where No Seat Is Specified In Arbitration Agreement, Jurisdiction Of Court Shall Be Determined In Accordance With Section 16 To 20 Of CPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that where no seat of arbitration is specified in the arbitration agreement, the jurisdiction of the court shall be determined in accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C. The bench held that: “….no confusion and law is explicit that for the purpose of Arbitration, even if no part of cause of action has...

[Arbitration Act] Awarding Interest Rate Is Discretion Of Arbitrator, Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right. The bench held that: “whether to grant or refuse the interest on the principle amount, is the absolute discretion of the learned Arbitrator.” Brief Facts: The Petitioner was...

Conclusions Drawn By Arbitrator In Disregard Of Evidence On Record Makes Award Liable To Be Set Aside As Being Perverse And Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to disputes that arose from a Memorandum...

Court Has Authority To Appoint Sole Arbitrator Even Though Arbitration Agreement Specified Three-Member Tribunal: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a contention that the court lacked the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator, even though the arbitration agreement specified a three-member tribunal. The bench held that because the parties have not been able to arrive at the name of an arbitrator, the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and...

[NHA Act] Section 3G(5) Petition Not Decided Within Prescribed Period Doesn't Preclude Landowner To Seek Enhanced Compensation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that landowner cannot be left high and dry for no fault of his. It held that the mere fact that his petition under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act was not decided by the Statutory Authority within the prescribed/extended period should not foreclose his right to seek enhancement in compensation. The...

[Arbitration Act] Court Can't Modify Arbitral Award While Hearing Challenge Under Section 34: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan held that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 gives no power to the court to modify an award while hearing a challenge to an arbitral award. The bench held that the court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award, and any attempt to do so, even if...

Arbitral Award Can't Be Set Aside Merely Due To Incorrect Application Of Law Or Misinterpretation Of Evidence: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that an arbitral award should only be set aside if it is clearly vitiated by "patent illegality" evident on the face of the record. The bench held that an award cannot be annulled merely due to an incorrect application of the law or misinterpretation of evidence.Brief Facts:The matter pertained to the acquisition of land for...

Arbitration Act | Misplacement Of File By Lawyer Not Sufficient Ground For Condoning 966 Days Delay: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has refused to condone a delay of 966 days in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was due to misplacement of case files by the lawyer while shifting his office during Dussehra.“Misplacement of files due to office shifting, especially during a holiday period, is not an uncommon occurrence. However, the burden lies on...

Period Of Bonafide Negotiations May Be Excluded For Computing Period Of Limitation For Reference: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held the period during which the parties were bona fide negotiating towards an amicable settlement may be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for reference to Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The bench held that in such cases, the entire negotiation history between the parties must...

Where Arbitration Seat Is Fixed, Only Such Court Shall Have Exclusive Jurisdiction To Entertain Application Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that where the arbitration seat is fixed, only such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the cause of action arose at Noida, the agreement was executed at Noida, and the suit property is also situated at Noida. Therefore, the courts in Noida have jurisdiction over the appointment of an arbitrator.Brief...

Court Fully Empowered To Extend Mandate Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Under Section 29A(4): Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Brief Facts:The Petitioner and the Respondent into an Agreement titled 'Subcontract for Boiler Works of Unit 1,2,3 of BARH STPP-1 (3x660 MW) Balance Work...

Termination Of Arbitrator's Mandate Doesn't Equate To Termination Of Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that that the termination of an arbitrator's mandate does not equate to the termination of the arbitral proceedings. Instead, it allows for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator to ensure the continuation of the proceedings.Brief Facts:The matter pertained to disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent which arose...