Arbitration
Limitation Period For Arbitration Decided By Arbitral Tribunals, Not By Courts: Telangana High Court Allows Section 11(6)(a) Application
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy held that the question of whether a claim is barred by limitation time is to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Further, the bench noted that the scope of Section 11(6) in conjunction with Section 11(9) is confined to the appointment...
Arbitration Act| Debatable Questions Of Fact Cannot Be Decided In Proceedings U/ S 11(6): Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the scope of judicial review in proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is very narrow. The Court held that debatable questions of fact cannot be gone into by the Court while adjudicating an application for appointment of arbitrator. “The rival contentions regarding arbitrability, in my view, cannot...
Limited Judicial Intervention U/s 8 And 11 Of Arbitration Act, Presumption In Favor Of Arbitration: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Krishna Rao held that while interpreting the arbitration agreements, the courts should have a presumption in favour of arbitration of the dispute and the court could only interfere if the party shows prima facie non-existence of valid arbitration agreement. It held that Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986...
Arbitral Award Under MSMED Act Must Be Challenged Under S 19 Of MSME Act Read With S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral award passed in a reference made under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 must be challenged as per provisions of Section 19 of the MSMED Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 19 of the MSMED Act provides that any application for setting aside any...
Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Permits Petitioner To Avail Remedy Under S. 37 Of Arbitration Act
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the aggrieved party should avail the alternate remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before approaching the court under Article 226 unless there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. Further, the bench held that the remedy available to a party under Article 226 is not absolute...
Arbitrator Taking A Different View Is Not A Ground To Set Aside Award: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Justice M.G. Priyadarsini held that the scope of setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 is very limited and can only be set aside if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and there is perversity in the award. Further, it held that the courts should not interfere with the...
'Finality Of Decision And Non-Arbitrability' Clause In GCC Does Not Imply An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has rejected a construction company's claim that the dispute resolution clause in the General Conditions of Contract with Mumbai Municipal Corporation constituted a valid arbitration agreement due to a lack of mutual intention to arbitrate.s The court pointed out that the title "Finality of Decision and Non-Arbitrability" of the clause clearly indicates the...
Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 22nd January to 28th January 2024
Allahabad High Court Reduction Of Interest Is Nothing But Modification Of Original Arbitration Award: Allahabad High Court Quashes Section 34 Order Case Title: Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44 The Allahabad High Court has held that the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...
Mere Reference Of Dispute To Arbitration Does Not Preclude The High Court From Examining Issue Of Stamp Duty In A Writ Petition: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has allowed a writ petition enabling the petitioner to approach the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to adjudicate/decide on the amount payable on the instrument despite the reference of the dispute arising out of the instrument to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that merely because the...
Group Of Companies Doctrine Cannot Be Applied To Directors Of A Company To Make Them A Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that directors of a company cannot be made parties to arbitration through 'Group of Companies' doctrine. It held that the relationship between the company and its director(s) is that of the 'Principal' and 'Agent' as defined under Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act. The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that in terms of Section 230 of...
A Party Cannot Challenge An Arbitral Award After Receiving Amount Payable Under It: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party that has received payment in terms of an arbitral award cannot challenge the award with respect to the disallowed claims. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that acceptance of payments under the award would estop a party from challenging the award. It held that party after receiving payment cannot repudiate part award detrimental to...
Award Cannot Be Challenged On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator If Appointment Was Not Contested Earlier: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot challenge an arbitral award on the ground of the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator if it did not challenge the appointment at an earlier stage.The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna upheld an arbitral award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator by observing that aggrieved party did not challenge...