Arbitration Act | New Evidence Cannot Be Adduced At S.37 Stage, Bar Of Limitation U/S 34(3) Is Attracted: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, held that the amendment obtained or raising fresh grounds virtually amounts to file a fresh appeal and would be barred by limitation as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Hence, it is not open for the appellant to raise any new ground or adduce any fresh evidence in an appeal under Section...

While Filing Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act, Applicant Is Not Required To Dispute Contents Of Plaint: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has held that there is no requirement for the applicant to dispute the contents of the plaint, while filling in an application under Section 8. The very fact that an application has been filed necessarily means that the applicant wants to refer the dispute to arbitration.Additionally, the court held that...

Benefit Of SC Judgment On Extension Of Limitation During COVID-19 Can't Be Granted On Mere Asking, Especially When Party Is In Default: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of extension of limitation during COVID-19, as per In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, cannot be granted to a party merely for the asking, especially when there is default on the part of the party seeking such extension. While dismissing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.'s appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,...

Reduction Of Awarded Interest Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Impermissible: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the arbitral tribunal has the discretion to grant pre-award interest and/or post-award interest, on either whole or part of the principal amount. In proceedings under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is impermissible to reduce interest awarded since the same amounts to modification of the...

Tribunal Is Master Of Evidence, Findings Cannot Be Scrutinised U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act As If Court Sitting In Appeal: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justices Tara Vitasta Ganju And Vibhu Bakhru held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the master of evidence and a finding of fact arrived at by an arbitrator is on an appreciation of the evidence on record, and is not to be scrutinized under section 37 of Arbitration Act as if the Court was sitting in appeal. Brief Facts Pec Limited (Appellant) issued a...

Arbitration Proceedings Can't Be Commenced Against Third Parties Who Are Not Parties To Agreement: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil has held that arbitration proceedings cannot be commenced against third parties who have not signed the Arbitration Agreement. The court observed that either the developer or the society, who has signed the Development Agreement can invoke the arbitration agreement in case of dispute. A party who is...

If Dispute Is Arbitrable, Court Cannot Refuse To Refer Parties To Arbitration U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court Bench of Justice Mr. Robin Phukan held that it is also well settled that reference of case to arbitral tribunal under section 8 of Arbitration Act can be declined by the court only if the dispute is non-arbitrable. Brief Facts This appeal, under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is directed against the order dated 09.08.2024,...

Prior To 2015 Amendment Act, Non-Disclosure Of Information Per Se Not A Ground To Incur Disqualification U/S 12 Of Arbitration Act: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman held that under section 12 of the Arbitration Act after the amendment act of 2015, there is a specific reference of ineligibility in the circumstances referred under the Seventh Schedule. This means per se there is an ineligibility if there exists any circumstance, which is specifically referred to in the...

Limitation Is Mixed Question Of Fact And Law Required To Be Adjudicated U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the issue of limitation, raised as a jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 of Arbitration Act, is rarely a pure question of law. More often, it is a mixed question of law and fact. Whether a claim is barred by the law of limitation depends upon the facts that determine the cause of action and the point from which...

Scope Of Review U/S 37(2)(b) Of Arbitration Act Is Very Limited, Courts Cannot Change Tribunal's Conclusion Based On Detailed Inquiry: Delhi HC

The High Court of Delhi of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the scope of review of an interlocutory order is very narrow when the tribunal examines the factual scenario in detail before formulating an opinion in Section 17. The court cannot change the conclusion reached by the tribunal when the same is based on an intricate factual examination of the matter.Facts:The ongoing...

Award Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality If Decision Of Arbitrator Is Perverse Or Irrational: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court Bench of Justice C.Saravanan held that patent illegality as a ground for setting aside an Award is available only if the decision of the Arbitrator is found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take or that the view of the Arbitrator...

Tribunal's Award However Erroneous, Must Be Challenged U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act, Court Cannot Exercise Writ Jurisdiction: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker held that when the 'Award' is made by the Facilitation Council / Tribunal by exercising jurisdiction vested in it, however erroneous the 'Award' may be, the same has to be challenged only by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. This court would not exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of...