Arbitration Act | To Claim Liquidated Damages, Party Should Establish It Had Suffered Legal Injury As Result Of Breach Committed By Other Party: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held Liquidated damages, in law, are no different from unliquidated damages that an aggrieved party may claim. In both instances, the aggrieved party is required to demonstrate legal injury. “Liquidated damages, as agreed to between the disputants, represents the maximum amount that can be paid...

Where Arbitral Award In Nature Of Money Decree, Requirement Of 100% Deposit Of Award For Grand Of Stay: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R.I. Chagla held that where the arbitral award is in the nature of money decree, there is a requirement for deposit of 100% of the awarded amount for grant of stay. Further, it held that there is no distinction in the application of parameters between stays sought under Section 36(3) and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, as neither...

MSCS Act | Disputes Between Society And Its Members Are Subject To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside State & District Consumer Commission Orders

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that disputes concerning the management, constitution, or business of the society, between the society and its members or those claiming through them, are subject to arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Therefore, it set aside orders of District Consumer...

No Privity Of Contract Between Parties, not party to MOU: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 11(4) A&C Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the Petitioners were not party to Memorandum of Understanding containing the arbitration clause, thus there was no privity of contract between the Petitioners and the Respondent. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached...

MSMED Act | Conciliation Mechanism Under Section 18 Shall Be Followed To Resolve Payment Dispute: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Kaushik Goswami dismissed a writ petition noting that when a dispute arises regarding payment under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the mechanism under Section 18 shall be followed to resolve the dispute by way of a conciliation proceeding, failing which arbitration proceeding as prescribed under Section 18 to...

Parties Assuring Document Execution And Providing Security For Transaction Are Part Of Loan Agreement: Delhi High Court Refers Parties To Arbitration

The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Jasmeet Singh that the parties which assured document execution and provided security for the transaction are integral part of the loan agreement. “Prima facie, I am of the view that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are a veritable party to the Loan Agreement as they are connected with the loan documents and form part of the loan transaction as in...

Onus On Authority Acting Arbitrator To Perform Task Within Time Schedule Prescribed In Statue: Himachal Pradesh High Court Directs Arbitrator To Complete Proceedings

The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja held that when a statute envisages an authority, be it an Arbitrator, to do a particular act in a particular manner and in a prescribed time schedule, then the onus is upon the said authority/Arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to it within the time schedule prescribed in the statute. It held that the...

Without Copy of Challenged Arbitral Award, Impossible To Consider Grounds To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that failure to file a copy of arbitral award renders the filing under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incomplete. The bench held that without the copy of the challenged award, it is impossible to consider the grounds to set aside the arbitral award. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached...

Contract To Refer Disputes To Director Of Social Forestry Department Whose Finding Is Final And Binding Constitutes Valid Arbitration Agreement: J&K High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court held that a contract to refer disputes to the Director of the Social Forestry Department, whose findings would be final and binding constituted a valid arbitration agreement. “A perusal of the said Clause 18, would show that it does not specifically mention that the dispute between the parties shall be referred to an arbitrator. What...

Technical Difficulties Shouldn't Thwart Objectives Of Arbitral Proceeding: Bombay High Court Allows Petition For Replacement Of Arbitrator

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Bharti Dangre held although there might be an impression that with the legal termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate upon the expiration of one year from the reference entry, as per Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 there might be a technical difficulty. However, it held that such technicalities should not thwart...

A&C | Allahabad High Court Set Aside Section 34 Order, District Judge Failed To Take Into Consideration When Appellant Received Signed Award Copy

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf set aside an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by the District Judge, noting that the judge failed to give due consideration to Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. Since the limitation period for Section 34 commences upon...

Limitation Act | Doesn't Encompass Long Delays, Condonation Only In Exceptional Cases: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Section 37 A&C Petition

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not encompass long delays, and condonation can only be granted in exceptional cases where the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently. The bench dismissed an appeal filed after a delay of four years. Brief Facts: The Appellant filed an...