Condonation Of Delay Re- Filing S. 34, A&C Act Application Must Be Allowed If Delay Is Procedural And Curable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that not every defect leads to the dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and took a liberal approach for condonation of delay. It held that defects were not fundamental in nature and could be termed as curable or procedural. Brief Facts: The Petitioner...

Section 47 Of The CPC Does Not Apply To Proceedings For Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award. The bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however,...

Notice For Appointment Of Arbitrator Need Not Be Addressed To General Manager, Registered Post To Railways Fulfils The Condition: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that notice for appointment of an Arbitrator was not necessarily required to be addressed to the General Manager of the Railways. Notice to invoke arbitration was said to be fulfilled as it was sent by a registered post to the Railways. Brief Facts: Northern Railway (“Respondent”) floated a tender...

Questions Of Agreement Implications And Legal Provisions Need To Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 A&C Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited...

Parties Not Signatories To Joint Venture Agreement Cannot Be Forced To Arbitration Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice M G Uma held that the parties not signatories to the Joint Venture Agreement, stipulating the arbitration clause, cannot be forced to arbitration proceedings. Brief Facts: The Platintiff approached the Karnataka High Court (“High Court”) and filed a writ of certiorari to annul the order to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator...

Enforcement Of Foreign Award Must Be Refused Only Rarely, International Standards To Be Applied To Determine Bias : Supreme Court

In a crucial judgment, while allowing the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the Supreme Court (on March 04), held that to determine the factor of arbitral bias, Court must endeavour to follow international standards than domestic ones. It is only in exceptional circumstances that enforcement of a foreign should be refused on the ground of bias., the Court said."Embracing...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 18th March to 24th March 2024

Supreme Court General Reference Won't Have Effect Of Incorporating Arbitration Clause In Another Contract, Specific Reference Needed : Supreme Court Case Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 246 The Supreme Court reiterated that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained...

Mere Delay By Employer Would Not Entitle The Contractor To Damages Unless The Loss Is Pleaded And Proved: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the delay in the execution of the work is attributable to the employer, the same would not entitle the contractor to claim damages unless it pleads and proves that such delay resulted in loss to it. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a procedural order passed by the earlier arbitrator, not being a...

Membership Of An Arbitral Institution Cannot Be Insisted Upon As A Pre-Requisite For Invoking Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held the membership of an arbitral institution cannot be insisted upon as a pre-requisite for invoking arbitration. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that when parties agree to resolve their dispute through an arbitral institution, such an agreement cannot be construed to mean that they have agreed to take its membership. The Court held...

Panel Consisting Of 23 Names Cannot Be Considered Broad-Based If It Lacks Arbitrators From Different Backgrounds: Delhi High Court

The High Cout of Delhi has held that a panel consisting of 23 names cannot be considered broad-based if lacks arbitrators from different backgrounds. The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that a panel must not only be broad in terms of numbers but should also reflect diversity by having arbitrators from diverse backgrounds. Facts The parties entered into an agreement...

Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator By Party: Delhi High Cout Set Aside Arbitral Award As It Contravened Section 12(5) A&C And & 7th Schedule

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held aside an arbitral award noting that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. The bench held that that the unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator by Respondent was non-est in law, as it contravened Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The...

Proceedings Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act And Arbitration Are Parallel In Nature Rather Overlapping: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Anand Phatak held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding dishonoring of cheques and arbitration are two proceedings moving in different jurisdictional realm and they are parallel in nature rather than overlapping. It held that “both may continue because scope of Section 138 of the N.I. Act...