Ease Of Doing Business In India Is A Matter Of 'Public Policy', Fruits Of Arbitral Award Must Be Protected To Promote Business: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that ease of doing business in india with indian entities is also a matter of 'Public Policy'. These observations were made by the High Court while hearing an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act at post award stage in arbitration with seat in United States (US). The Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the fruits of the award must...

An Arbitration Award With Contradictory Findings Is Liable To Be Set Aside Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration award, in which the tribunal rendered findings contrary to its own observations, falls within the rubric 'Public Policy' under Section 34 of the Act. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also held that in a situation wherein the arbitral tribunal has given conflicting awards on an identical issue involving the same parties and...

Non-Adjudication Upon An Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter Would Make The Arbitral Award Opposed To 'Public Policy': Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that non-adjudication, by the arbitral tribunal, upon an issue that goes to the root of the matter would make the arbitral award opposed to public policy. It held that such an award would be set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that once the tribunal duly notes the submissions of a party on an...

Arbitration Is Hailed As A Faster Alternative To Traditional Litigation, But Reality In India Falls Short Of Object: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that interference in an arbitral award on grounds of violation of public policy can be done if it is against the substantive provisions of the Act.The Court held that interference in arbitral award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on grounds of 'public policy' must be cautiously done as it can lead to excessive judicial review...

Arbitral Award Can't Be Challenged U/S 47 CPC In Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On State

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the State of Uttar Pradesh for raising objections under Section 47 of CPC in execution proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds which were decided in application under Section 34 but were not raised in appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.While dismissing the appeal, Justice...

Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act And RDDB Act Are Complimentary, Can Continue Parallelly: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that proceedings under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act are complimentary to each other and both the proceedings can continue parallelly. The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that since both the proceedings are complimentary, there would be no application of principle of election of remedies and the...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 8th April To 14th April 2024

Allahabad High Court Whether Claims Prior To Work Order Are Covered By The Arbitration Clause Or Not Is To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd, Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023 The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to...

Jurisdiction Of MSEF Council Wrongly Invoked, Time Spent Therein Excluded From Limitation: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that when the jurisdiction of the MSEF Council is wrongly invoked due to uncertainty in law, the time spent before the Council would not be counted while calculating limitation. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, which exempts the bond fide time spent before the wrong forum, would be given in such...

Notice Of Dispute To MSEF Council Under Section 18 Of MSMED Act Can Be Considered As Notice Of Arbitration Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a notice given by a party invoking jurisdiction of MSEF Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act can be considered to be a notice of arbitration required under Section 21 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation and...

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Termination Of Arbitration Proceedings With Costs Of 25,000/- Citing Delay By Petitioner Itself

The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a writ petition seeking termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 29A of the A&C Act by observing that the arbitrator had proceeded diligently and it was the petitioner itself who had taken various adjournments causing delay. It imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner. The bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and C.M. Poonacha...

Insistence On Pre-Arbitral Steps Would Be Meaningless When The Respondent Fails To Give Reply To Notices Issued By The Petitioner: Delhi High Court

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh of Delhi High Court has held that pre-arbitral steps providing for resolution of disputes through mutual talks or through Ombudsman would lose its relevance when a party fails to give reply to notices issued by the other party seeking amicable settlement. Facts The parties entered into a Redistribution Stockist Agreement dated 14.07.2021...

Service On Whatsapp Number And Email Address Mentioned In The Agreement Constitutes A Valid Service: Delhi High Court

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that service of the petition on the WhatsApp number and the Email address mentioned in the agreement between the parties constitutes a valid service. Facts The parties entered into a lease agreement dated 21.03.2018 wherein a vehicle was leased out by the petitioner to respondent no.1. Clause 10.2 of...