Incorporating Arbitration Clause Via Subsequent Circular Isn't Valid Unless Explicitly Mentioned And Included In Original Agreement: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that if an agreement or clause within it necessitates or anticipates additional consent before arbitration can occur, it doesn't constitute arbitration itself but rather an agreement to potentially engage in arbitration in the future, which isn't inherently enforceable. It held that incorporating an...

[NHAI Act] Landowner Shouldn't Suffer For Act Or Omission Of Arbitrator, Right To Property Is Constitutional Right Under Article 300A: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that the landowner shouldn't suffer for the act of omission of the Arbitrator to make an award within a period of 12 months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the Reference as per Section 29(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It held that the reason that as right to property is...

[Contempt Of Court] Delhi High Court Directs International Avenue To Deposit Rs. 5 Crores Within One Week Considering Due Of 15 Crores Arbitral Award

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has directed International Avenue to deposit Rs. 5 crores within one week considering the substantial amount due under the arbitral award. The bench held that despite providing multiple opportunities to the company, it failed to comply with the order. It held that this constituted contempt of court. Brief Facts: The...

Arbitral Tribunal Cant Go Outside Reference Order, Cannot Widen Its Jurisdiction By Dealing With Disputes Not Referred To It: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot go outside the reference order by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 86 (1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and cannot widen its jurisdiction by dealing with disputes not referred to it. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a...

When State Constitutes Proper Dispute Redressal System, Party Cannot Directly Approach High Court Under Writ Petition: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held that when the government constitutes a proper dispute redressal system for resolution of any dispute between the parties, the party cannot directly approach the High Court and file a writ petition. It held that when the statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating...

[Arbitration Act] For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Section 34, Party Is Obligated To Reveal Bonafidies Coupled With Plausible Reasons: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that for showing sufficient cause as required under the proviso to Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the party is obligated to reveal their bonafidies coupled with plausible reason in not filing the application within the prescribed time. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration...

Interpretation Of Agreement By Arbitrator Cannot Be Interfered Merely Because Another View Could Have Been Taken: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that in case the interpretation of the relevant clause of agreement as arrived at by the Arbitrator was possible and plausible, the same cannot be interfered with merely because another view could have been taken. The bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in UHL Power Company Ltd. versus State of...

Proper Recourse Against Arbitral Proceeding Under MSMED Act Is Application u/s 18(3) Of MSMED Act Or u/s 16 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the proper recourse against proceedings under the MSMED Act is to file an application under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act or Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Further, the bench held that in case an award has been passed, then the proper recourse is to file...

Allegations Against Arbitral Tribunal Without Any Basis Is Contrary To Letter And Spirit Of Arbitral Process: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that making allegations against the Arbitral Tribunal without any basis is contrary to the letter and spirit of the arbitral process. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction agreement (EPC) made between the NHAI and M/S Kcc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent”). Dispute...

Arbitration Monthly Digest - April 2024

Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court Directs Inquiry Against Officers Who Failed To File Arbitration Appeals Within Prescribed Limitation Case Title: Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2024] The Allahabad High Court has directed...

Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 22nd April to 28th April 2024

Allahabad High Court Court Under Section 19 Of MSMED Act, 2006 Empowered To Allow Predeposit In Installments: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S Docket Care Systems vs M/S Hariwill Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266 The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that expression “in the manner directed...

Court Under Section 9 Of A&C Act Can Punish For Disobedience Of Its Order, Power Akin To Order 39 Rule 2A Of CPC: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that the Court under Section 9 of the A&C Act can punish for the disobedience of its order. It held that its power under Section 9 is similar to the Civil Court's power under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC which provides that the Court can attach the property of disobeying party as well as sentence it to imprisonment for up to 3 months.The bench of...