Delhi High Court Directs Arbitrator To Refund 6 Lakh Of 14.5 Lakh Fee Paid By Parties

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed the arbitrator to refund Rs.6,00,000- of the fees of Rs.14,50,000/- paid by the parties to the arbitrator noting the arbitrator had conducted a total of twelve hearings, of which only three resulted in substantive orders. Moreover, the bench noted that the issues in the arbitral proceedings had not yet been framed,...

Employee Of Railways Cannot Be Appointed As Arbitrator, Violates Section 12(1) A&C And Perkins Eastman: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held the personnel who is the employee of the Indian Railways cannot be appointed as an arbitrator as it would violate Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the law laid down in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Section 37 A&C | Explanation For Delay Of 191 Days Is Sketchy And Doesn't Corelate Any Event To Specific Dates: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay of 191 days for petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that explanation provided for the delay was sketchy and did not corelate any event to specific dates or time period. Section 37 of the...

Court Empowered To Extend Time For Passing Arbitral Award Even If It Is Already Passed: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman held that the Court would be empowered to extend the time for passing the award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even in a case where the arbitral award has already been passed if there exit sufficient grounds for such an extension. Brief Fact: The matter pertained to an arbitral award for...

Telecom Services - Franchisee Agreement, Not Subject To TDSAT Jurisdiction, Delhi High Court Refers Dispute To Arbitration

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a mere franchisee responsible for promotion of services provided by the petitioner, ergo, it does not fall under the definitions of licensee, licensor, service provider, or group of consumers as per the TRAI Act. It held that bar under Section 14 only applies in relation to telecommunication services and not to...

No Writ Against Order Of Tribunal Rejecting Application U/S 16 Of The A&C Act Unless It Shocks The Conscience Of The Court: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal rejecting an application challenging its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the A&C Act cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless the order is so perverse that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad reiterated that to protect the sanctity of the arbitral process,...

MSMED Act | Service Supplier Registered During Ongoing Contract Can Avail Benefits For Services Provided After Registration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a service supplier, upon registering during an ongoing contract, is eligible to avail benefits under the MSMED Act for services provided after registration. It held that it is always open to the arbitrator to decide this issue even as a preliminary issue. Brief Facts: A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was...

Sec. 11, A&C Act Petition Must Be Filed In High Court Where Cause Of Action Arose, Not Necessarily At Principle Place Of Business: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that such a petition should be filed at the place of the subordinate office of the corporation. “In the present case as well, the subordinate office of the respondent is situated at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and for the...

Arbitrator's Finding Based On Proper Appreciation And Interpretation Of Prevalent Conditions: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Section 37 Appeal

The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee dismissed appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that arbitrator's finding was based upon the proper appreciation and interpretation of the prevalent conditions and the site inspection along with the documents on record. Brief Facts: The...

Application Under Section 29A A&C Can Be Allowed Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be allowed even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. Section 29A deals with the time limit for arbitral award. It specifies that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the...

Arbitration Act | When Parties Engage In Constant Communication, Unjust To Dismiss Claim Solely On Grounds Of Being Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that it would be an unnatural construction of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where a party with a bona fide and a genuine claim is left in the lurch on the defence of the claim being barred by limitation. It held that when parties engage in constant communication for the settlement of...

Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible Under Arbitration Act And Negotiable Instruments Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Anil B Katti held that simultaneous proceedings can be carried on under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench further held that a party cannot be acquitted solely on the basis of presence of an arbitration agreement. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to M/s....