Arbitration
Writ Not Maintainable When Efficacious Remedy Before The Arbitrator Is Available: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur bench has held that a writ would not be entertained when the petitioners fail to avail the efficacious contractual remedy before the Arbitrator. The bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that merely because the nominated arbitrator is the managing director of the respondent corporation, it cannot be assumed that it would not be able...
Arbitrator Can Award Compensation On 'Guesswork' When Loss Is Difficult To Prove Subject To Maximum Amount Payable Under LD Clause: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitrator is empowered to award compensation to an aggrieved party that has suffered losses on the basis of 'rough and ready method' or 'guesswork' when the loss is difficult to prove. The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal held that as long as there is material available with the arbitrator that damages have been suffered, but...
Whether Claims Prior To Work Order Are Covered By The Arbitration Clause Or Not Is To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court
The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court at pre-arbitration stage under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar also reiterated that after the judgment in Perkins...
Limitation Period For Filing An Application For Substitution Of An Arbitrator Is 3 Years: Delhi High Court
The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 14 of the A&C Act seeking substitution of the arbitrator is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. The Court also held that an arbitrator would be deemed to have abandoned the arbitration if no proceedings take...
Calcutta High Court Dismisses Petition Opposing Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award Based On Constructive Res-Judicata
The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application by Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL) under Sections 48/49 of the A&C Act seeking to refuse enforcement of the foreign award in favour of the Centrotrade Minerals. The bench of Justice Sugato Majmudar held that once the enforceability of an award is affirmed by the Supreme Court, it cannot be opposed on a new ground which could...
Arbitration Act | Court Should Refrain From Delving Into Hyper-Technical Aspects Of Arbitration Agreement At Section 11(6) Stage: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that court at the Section 11(6) stage should refrain from delving into hyper-technical aspects or intricacies of the arbitration agreement. Instead, the bench held that if an agreement visibly contains an arbitration clause and involves a dispute suitable for arbitration, it must be referred to the arbitrator as a...
Arbitration Act | Section 6 Commercial Courts Act Is Enabling Provision, Doesn't Override Arbitration Agreement: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Appeal
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction. It held that even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration...
Arbitration Weekly Round-up: 1st April to 7th April 2024
High Courts 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...
Use Of The Word 'Seat' Is Not Compulsory In An Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that the use of word 'seat' in an arbitration clause is not compulsory to determine the jurisdiction of the Court(s) which would have jurisdiction over the proceedings arising out of the arbitration agreement. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that there would be no seat and venue dichotomy when the jurisdiction conferred on other courts is...
Decision Of Arbitral Tribunal To Not Implead A Party To Arbitration Is Not An 'Interim Award': Delhi High Court
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that a decision of the arbitral tribunal to refuse to implead a party to the arbitral proceedings does not constitute an 'Interim Award' which can be directly challenged under Section 34 of the Act pending arbitral proceedings. Facts The parties entered into a concession agreement dated 15.07.2011....
Suo Moto Extension Of Limitation By Supreme Court| The Balance Days Of Limitation Left On 15.03.2020 Would Become Available W.E.F. 01.03.2022: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that the balance days of limitation which were available to a party on 15.03.2020 would become available with effect from 01.03.2022, which is the day on which the benefit of the Suo Moto Extension by the Supreme Court expired. The bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act would not be time barred...
Registration Of Shares In Favor Of The Pledgee As The "Beneficial Owner" Does Not Amount To A Sale Of Shares: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere registration of shares in favor of the pledgee as the "beneficial owner" does not amount to a sale of shares, and the pledgee is not required to account for any sale proceeds until the shares are actually sold to a third party. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the pledgee's right of redemption of shares remains...