Arbitration
In Interconnected Agreements, Use Of Word 'May' Does Not Defeat Clear Intention To Arbitrate In Main Agreement: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that in case of interconnected agreements, where the mother agreement clearly and unequivocally refers the disputes to arbitration, mere use of 'may' in the arbitration clause of one of the ancillary agreements will not defeat the intention to arbitrate. Brief Facts: This application has been filed under section 11(6)...
Whether A Particular Contract Is A Works Contract Under MSME Can't Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that the question of whether a particular contract is a works contract or not is for the MSME Council to decide, and the dispute cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction. Brief Facts: This writ petition challenges the order dated 21.12.2024 in Case No. 1292/MSEFC/2021 passed by Respondent No. 2, seeking a declaration...
Applicability Of Arbitration Clause Is To Be Determined By Arbitrator, Cannot Be Decided In S.11 Plea: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that contentions regarding the applicability and relevance of an arbitration agreement are to be dealt with by the arbitrator and cannot be gone into at the stage of section 11 petition. Once the existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed, any dispute related to the applicability of the agreement has to be dealt by...
Mere Passage Of Time Does Not Bar Arbitration If Arbitration Clause Remains Valid & Enforceable: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K Lakshman has held that mere passage of time does not bar arbitration if the arbitration clause remains valid. The Limitation for the purpose of filing the application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act commences from the date when request for initiating arbitration is rejected. Brief Facts: This application has been filed...
Inconsequential Errors Cannot Be Grounds To Challenge Judicious & Reasoned Award U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kunar Ohri has held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of apparent inconsequential errors and fumbles to challenge the award. Inconsequential errors in the award cannot be a ground to challenge otherwise judicious and reasoned award. Brief Facts of the case: The respondent accepted an offer letter to procure a machine...
Dispute Review Board's Recommendations Are Arbitral Awards, Enforceable U/S 36 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that the recommendations of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) rendered under a contract constitute an arbitral award which is enforceable as a decree under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court further held that the limitation for enforcement begins from the date of the award,...
Arbitration Clause Mandates Reference, Question Of Appropriateness Can't Be Considered U/S 8 Of A&C Act: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Rai Chattopadhyay has held that where an agreement between the parties contains a clear arbitration clause and disputes arise under that agreement, the Trial Court is bound to refer the parties to arbitration. The question of whether such reference is appropriate or not does not arise, as Section 8(1) of the Arbitration...
When Earlier Appointment Of Arbitrator Is Defective, Court May Appoint New Arbitrator U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that a substitute arbitrator must generally be appointed in the same mode and manner as the original arbitrator. When the appointment of an earlier arbitrator was done under a defective arbitration clause or an unlawful procedure was followed, in such cases a proper recourse is to seek appointment of a new arbitrator...
Professional Engagement With Law Firm Does Not Disqualify Advocate From Acting As Arbitrator: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an Advocate who has accepted briefs from a law firm for unrelated clients cannot, by that fact alone, be deemed ineligible to act as an Arbitrator in disputes involving parties not personally known to or represented by him, even if the same law firm appears in the arbitration. Brief Facts: This...
Arbitration Act | Notice U/S 21 Not Always Necessary If Other Party Was Aware Of Dispute: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court ruled that since the respondent was already aware of and was not taken by surprise regarding petitioner's invocation of arbitration clause, their plea that the application for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable since no notice was served under Section 21 of the A&C Act 1996, lacked merit.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also reiterated the principle...
Named Arbitrator In Notice U/S 21 Of A&C Act Can't Pass Orders Without Consent Of Other Party Or Order Of Appointment U/S 11: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that a person who is the named Arbitrator in a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot enter reference and pass orders without the other person consenting thereto or without an order of appointment of Arbitrator by institution or a Court under Section 11 of...
Arbitrator Can't Grant Relief Contrary To Terms Of Contract: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Award Of Compensation For Delay
The Rajasthan High Court bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal have held that an arbitral award which grants reliefs beyond the express terms of the contract, including compensation for losses and interest where no such entitlement exists under the agreement, is patently illegal and liable to be set aside under Section 37 of the Arbitration and...