Arbitration
Supreme Court Judgements On Arbitration In 2023
Starting Point Of Limitation U/ Section 34(3) Arbitration Act In Cases Of Suo Motu Correction Of Award: Supreme Court ExplainsThe Supreme Court observed that the starting point for the limitation under Section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the...
Debt Owed To Financial Institutions Under SARFAESI Is Arbitrable, Not Debt Under RDDB Act: Bombay High Court
The High Court of Bombay has held that a debt owed to a financial institution covered only under the SARFAESI Act is arbitrable, however, a debt owed to a financial institution to which the provisions of RDDB Act also applies is non-arbitrable. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale while distinguishing both the acts held that the proceedings under RDDB Act contains exhaustive provisions...
Statement Made Before The Arbitrator Withdrawing Objection To Unilateral Appointment Would Not Suffice 'Express Agreement' Required Under Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that a statement made by a party's counsel before the Arbitrator withdrawing objection to unilateral appointment would not suffice 'express agreement' required under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh reiterated that ineligibility of the arbitrator goes to the root of the matter and any award passed by an...
A Party Cannot Be Compelled To Appoint An Arbitrator From A Narrow Panel Consisting Of 3 Persons: Delhi High Court Reiterates
The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel of arbitrators consisting of merely 3 persons is not broad-based, therefore, a party cannot be compelled to appoint the arbitrator from such a narrow panel. The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh also reiterated that mere participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be constituted as a waiver to application of Section 12(5) of the...
Domain Name Infringement, S.34 Restrains Judicial Interference In Issues Of 'Subjective Satisfaction'; Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on December 13 held that the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 strictly restrained the Court from interfering in issues of interpretation of contractual conventions and those matters where the arbitrator is required to be “subjectively satisfied” on questions of facts.The single-judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar in a petition...
Cancellation Of Deed Is Action In Personam, Not In Rem; It Is Arbitrable : Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court (December 15) allowed arbitration between the parties in a property dispute based on the broad language of the arbitration clause in the Tripartite Agreements. The Court rejected the argument that since the suit was for cancellation of a deed, the dispute was not arbitrable, as the action was in rem. The Court held that cancellation of a deed was an action in...
Arbitration Clauses Do Not Bar Consumer Commissions' Jurisdiction, NCDRC Allows Complaint Against Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench comprising Mr Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Bhartkumar Pandya (Member) held Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. and its subsidiary, Jaypee Sports Int. Ltd. liable for failure to deliver the possession of the housing unit to the Complainant within the stipulated time. Further, the Builder's defence that...
Bare Plea Of Fraud, Coercion Not Enough To Challenge Settlement Agreement U/S 34 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify challenge to the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act.The bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify challenge to the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Court held that once a...
Petition U/S 34 Of The A&C Act Dismissed Twice For Non-Prosecution, Delhi High Court Denies Benefit Of Section 14 Of Limitation Act Citing Lack Of Diligent Prosecution
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not available to a petitioner who, through lack of diligence, allowed its Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to be dismissed twice for non-prosecution. The bench of Justices Rajiv Shadkher and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that the fact that a petition was dismissed in...
Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 4th December To 10th December
Supreme Court Principle Of 'Alter Ego' Or 'Piercing Corporate Veil' Not The Basis For 'Group Of Companies' Doctrine: Supreme Court Case: Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd | ARBIT. PETITION No. 38/2020 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042 While approving the 'group of companies' doctrine in the arbitration law jurisprudence, the Supreme Court clarified that the principle...
MSMED Act 2006 Overrides Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And Any Agreement Entered Into Between Parties: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday held that the provision of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 have an overriding effect on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and any agreement entered into between parties.Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the bench comprising of Justice Mahesh...
Technical Deficiencies, Including Pagination And Affidavit Attestation, Do Not Render Section 34 Under A&C Act Non-Est: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that technical deficiencies, including pagination and affidavit attestation, do not invalidate petitions under Section 34 of the A&C Act.The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that every objection in the filing would not render a petition non-est and it is only the defects that goes to the root of the matter that would make the filing non-est....