Arbitration
Order In Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Based On Settlement Is Enforceable As Decree : Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree in accordance with Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 36 of the CPC pertains to the "Application to orders" and addresses the execution of decrees and orders....
The Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Re-interpret Contracts While Examining Patent Illegality : Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence under the guise of patent illegality, as per the proviso to Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It remarked that the Court cannot be sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's decision and cannot re-interpret the contract differently from...
Arbitral Tribunal Is Final Decision-Maker; Court Interference Only For Perverse Or Implausible Awards: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court divison bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that Arbitral Tribunal serves as the ultimate decision-maker on all matters. The bench held that interference by the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only warranted if the Tribunal's decision is deemed perverse...
Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that allegations of a party's signature on an arbitration agreement being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation are matters that can be decided by the arbitrator and can't be resolved by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench further observed that the...
Arbitrator's Discussion On Claims And Costs Exceeds Jurisdiction If Not As Per Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that if an arbitrator concludes that she was not appointed according to the arbitration clause, then any discussion on the merits of the claims and the award of costs against the Respondents exceeds the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition which challenged an arbitral award...
Commercial Courts Empowered To Hear Commercial Original Petition Arising From Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarsini has held that commercial courts are competent courts to hear the Commercial Original Petition arising from Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in terms of specified value, territorial jurisdiction and the nature of the dispute i.e.,...
Administrative Delays Insufficient To Justify 950-Day Delay In Section 34 Appeal Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has held that the administrative reason alone cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 950 days in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that delays attributable to administrative factors, such as changes in project management or internal procedural adjustments, do...
Administrative Lethargy Of Government Machinery Not Valid Ground For Delay Condonation In Arbitration Appeals: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that nature of administrative lethargy of the Government machinery is not a satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay in submitting an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: Union of India filed an application before the High Court for condonation of...
Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Justified If Applicant's Rights Are Not Protected From Third Parties: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous. Brief Facts: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited...
Personal Hearings Not Always Necessary For Arbitrator Appointment If Pleadings Are Complete: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that while personal hearings for all parties can be beneficial in proceedings to enforce the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6), it is not always necessary. The bench held that when an arbitration agreement is clearly established in the pleadings and the dispute is not evidently stale or time-barred,...
No Prior Request Under Section 21 Needed For Section 11 Arbitration Applications: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21. The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of...
Correspondence Stating Non-Arbitrability Of Dispute Due To Negotiable Instruments Act Proceedings Implies Recognition Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that correspondence from a party stating that ongoing proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 barred initiation of arbitration implicitly acknowledged the existence of the arbitration clause. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation...