Arbitration
Arbitrator Decides Validity Of Arbitration Agreement, Telangana High Court Applies Prima Facie Approach To Allow S. 11 Application
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Justice K Lakshman held that the court can refer a dispute to arbitration unless a party could establish a prima facie case of the non-existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that in cases where doubt arises regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement, the matter should be referred and decided by the...
Writ Petition Against Arbitrator's Order Not Maintainable Unless Exceptional Circumstances Or Bad Faith Can Be Shown: M.P. High Court
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Devnarayan Mishra refused to exercise the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution for a matter involving dismissal of an application made to an Arbitrator under Section 16(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner. The...
Section 8 Of A& C Act Is Compiled On Filing Application Under O. 7 Rule 11, Informing About Arbitration Clause: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice Alok Aradhe held that the requirement under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to inform the court regarding the existence of an arbitration clause is fulfilled when a party files an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a commercial...
Generic Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause In Agreement Doesn't Supersede Courts' Jurisdiction Of Arbitration Seat: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that even if the agreement specifies exclusive jurisdiction on a different court, courts having jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration retain supervisory authority over the arbitral process. Therefore, it held that the presence of a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause does not diminish Delhi courts' jurisdiction as the...
Allegation of Bias Can't Be Raised After Award Has Been Passed Under S. 31, Delhi High Court Dismisses S. 34 Application
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that objections regarding bias against an arbitrator, as outlined in Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be raised after the arbitrator has rendered a decision under Section 31. The single bench emphasized that once an award has been made, raising allegations of bias amounts to a waiver...
Arbitration Referred By Civil Court Without Invoking S. 11 Of Arbitration Act Doesn't Require Registration, It's Part Of Decree: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court single bench comprising Justice MG Uma held that when a Civil Court refers the parties to arbitration and appoints an arbitrator without invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award merges with the decree accepted by the court, therefore, doesn't warrant to be registered and drawn on a stamp paper. Brief Facts: H...
Mere Negotiations Do Not Delay Cause Of Action For Purpose Of Limitation, Telangana High Court Dismisses Application For Appointment Of Arbitrator
The Telangana High Court single bench comprising Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy held that the mere exchange of communications or settlement discussions between the parties does not extend the period of limitation for issuing a notice of arbitration. The bench held that mere negotiations do not delay the cause of action for the purpose of limitation. Brief Facts: Athelli...
Fraud Being Non-Arbitrable Due To Complexity Is Archaic Position, Contemporary Arbitration Practice Has Evolved: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court single bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre held that due to an evolution in contemporary arbitration where there was a belief that fraud disputes were unsuitable for arbitration, today, arbitral tribunals routinely navigate through extensive material in various dispute types. Thus, it held that the previous notion of fraud being non-arbitrable due to complexity...
Arbitration And Conciliation Act Does Not Overlap West Bengal Public Land Act: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that there exists no conflict between the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the provisions of The West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962. It held that both statutes operate within distinct domains and do not overlap in their scope or application. Brief...
Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 3nd February to 11th February 2024
Delhi High Court Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Permits Petitioner To Avail Remedy Under S. 37 Of Arbitration Act Case Title: Shri Balaji Enterprises & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134 The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the aggrieved party should avail the alternate remedy available...
Disputes Prior To Registration Under MSME Act Can't Be Referred To MSME Arbitration: Delhi High Court Reiterates
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad held that an entity registered under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 after the commencement of the contract cannot be referred to arbitration by MSME Council under Section 17 and 18 of the Act for the claims arisen before its registration. The bench noted that this objection should be raised before...
Party Failing To File Written Submission Within Time Frame, Forfeits Right To File Sec. 8 Petition Under A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a party forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 once it has filed the written statement in a civil suit. Brief Facts: Surender Singh Sethi (“Respondent”) initiated a civil suit against Ranjana Bhasin (“Appellant”)...