No Provision Under Arbitration Act To Spilt Parties Or Refer Part Of Subject Matter To Arbitration, Delhi High Court Dismisses S. 8 Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is no provision for splitting of parties and referring part of the subject matter to arbitration. It held that where a suit encompasses matters outside the arbitration agreement and involves parties not party to the said agreement, Section 8 of the Arbitration...

Appointment Of Arbitrator When Claims Not Covered By GCC Would Cause Wastage Of Resources And Time: Gauhati High Court Dismisses S. 11 Application

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that while the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability lies with the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court may intervene in manifestly non-arbitrable claims to prevent resource wastage. “To appoint an Arbitrator, even though there is no doubt in the view of this Court that the present dispute is not...

Certified Copy Of Original Arbitration Agreement Attested By 'Notary Public' Is Sufficient Under S. 8(2) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that a certified copy of the original agreement 'attested by a Notary Public' is sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. Once filed, the courts must refer the parties to arbitration. Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act provides, “The application referred to in sub-section...

Mere Registration Of Criminal Case In Relation To An Agreement Would Not Make The Disputes Arising Out Of It Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

The Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of Delhi High Court has held that merely because a criminal case of forgery/fabrication has been registered in relation to an agreement, any civil/commercial dispute arising out of such agreement would not become non-arbitrable. The Court reiterated that pendency of criminal case is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of...

Party Invoked Arbitration Clause By Referring To Work Orders: Delhi High Court Appoints Justice Mukta Gupta As Arbitrator

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh appointed Justice Mukta Gupta (Retd.) as an arbitrator for a dispute where a Petitioner invoked arbitration by referring to the work orders signed by the parties. The High Court observed the identical nature of the arbitration clauses in the tender and the work orders and held that there was no ambiguity even if the tender...

Waiver Of Arbitrator's Ineligibility Must Be Made By Agreement In Writing, Section 12(5) Does Not Provide For Deemed Consent: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the ineligibility of the arbitrator could only be waived if both parties agree by an express agreement in writing as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Parties' consent cannot be implied otherwise. Brief Facts: The Petitioners entered into a User Car Dealer/DSA Agreement (“Agreement”) with HDFC...

MSMED Act | Imposition Of Three Times Bank Interest By MSME Facilitation Council Is Violation Of Principles Of Reasonableness And Fairness: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court single bench of Justice R. N. Manjula held that the imposition of three times of the bank rate of interest on the award amount by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Facilitation Council is violation of fundamental principles of reasonableness and fairness. It held that the Petitioner is indirectly deprived of his appeal remedy in view of such high rate...

No Requirement Of Fresh Section 21 Notice For Re-Commencing The Arbitration After The First Award Is Set Aside Under Section 34: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that there is no requirement of Section 21 notice for re-commencing the arbitration after the first award is set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in such a situation there would be no requirement of a fresh invocation notice as the opposite party would already be aware of the existence of the...

Allahabad High Court Directs Inquiry Against Officers Who Failed To File Arbitration Appeals Within Prescribed Limitation

The Allahabad High Court has directed Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against officers who were responsible for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which were filed after a delay of 513 days.While dismissing the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,...

Arbitration Monthly Round-Up -March 2024

Supreme Court Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred : Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023 In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 25th March to 31st March 2024

Supreme Court Enforcement Of Foreign Award Must Be Refused Only Rarely, International Standards To Be Applied To Determine Bias : Supreme Court Case Title: AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. v. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC )267 In a crucial judgment, while allowing the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the Supreme Court...

Patent Illegality | For Claim For Damages There Must Be Proof Of Actual Loss: Bombay High Court Stays Arbitral Award

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R.I. Chagla stayed an arbitral award noting that the Arbitrator contravened the settled law that for a claim for damages, there must be proof of actual loss which is sine qua non for such claim. It held that the Arbitrator failed to consider the proof of loss while awarding damages to the Claimant. Brief Facts: The...