Multiple Arbitration Before Different Arbitral Tribunals Is Counterproductive And Should Be Avoided: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh held that multiple arbitrations before different Arbitral Tribunals in respect of the same contract is counterproductive and ought to be avoided. The bench held that it is incumbent on the parties to disclose such information to the court when approaching for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of...

Expert Committee On Arbitration Law Proposes Complete Overhaul Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996

The Expert Committee on Arbitration Law, formed on June 12, 2023, to assess the functionality of the Arbitration Law in the country and propose reforms to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, has released its long-awaited report. Key highlights of the report include a comprehensive analysis of the current arbitration law, detailed recommendations for reform, and the presentation...

Section 42 A&C | Delhi High Court Terminates Arbitrator's Mandate Who Disclosed Award Prematurely To Party During Proceedings

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh terminated mandate of an arbitrator who disclosed the award prematurely and revealed details about several claims during the hearing of the arbitral proceedings to the party. The bench held that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates for strictest confidentiality in arbitration proceedings and the...

Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 26th February to 3rd March 2024

Supreme Court Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred : Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023 In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of...

Arbitration Monthly Round Up: February 2024

Supreme Court Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred : Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023 In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of...

Designation Of Seat Of Arbitration Akin To An Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11 Application

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that designation of a seat of arbitration is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. It emphasized that in an agreement featuring distinct forum selection and seat clauses, the clause designating the seat takes precedence and assumes pre-eminence.Brief Facts:The matter pertained to disputes arising from a "Management...

Mere Reference To Another Agreement Having Arbitration Clause Does Not Automatically Incorporate It Into Subsequent Contract: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held that arbitration cannot be binding on parties unless the terms and conditions of the referenced agreement, which includes an arbitration clause, are explicitly incorporated into the new contract. Brief Facts:The matter pertained to a contractual agreement between the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC)...

Counterclaims Can Be Enforced Under Section 36 Of The A&C Act If The Part Of Award Favouring Judgment-Debtor Is Set Aside: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the counterclaims allowed by the arbitral tribunal can be enforced under Section 36 of the A&C Act when the portion of the award granting larger sums to the judgment-debtor (claimant in the arbitration) is set aside.The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated that partial setting aside of an award is permissible under the Act, therefore, when the...

Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Arbitral Award And Re-Examine The Merits: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Section 34 A&C Appeal

The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that Court cannot sit in appeal over the arbitral award and re-examine the merits. It held that it is not permissible for a court to reappreciate the evidence on record.Further, it held that the arbitral award cannot be interfered with where on interpretation of any contract or document,...

Parliament Should Consider Amending Arbitration Act To Prescribe Limitation Period To File S.11 Application : Supreme Court

In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court delved into the crucial question of whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to applications for the appointment of arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court highlighted the absence of a statutory prescription regarding the time limit for such applications and expressed concerns about the unduly...

Arbitrator Need Not To Be Technical In Nature, Within Power To Decide Matter On Basis Of Material On Record: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral proceedings before the arbitrator are not required to be technical in nature and the arbitrator is within its power to decide the same on the basis of material on record. The bench held that the arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality and quantity of evidence, and the court's role is not to reassess...

Section 29A Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Commenced Before 2015: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which prescribes a time limit for issuance of arbitral award is not applicable to arbitration proceedings commenced before 2015 Amendment Act. It held that arbitral proceedings commence on the date when the Respondent receives the request for reference to...