Need For Broad Panel To Choose From To Ensure Arbitrator's Independence As Per Clause 64 of GCC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta allowed an application made under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, regarding the termination of an arbitrator's mandate under his former employment with the respondent, Northern Railway. The bench held that a broad-based panel should have been provided to the complainant and 4 was very less a number, coupled...

Striking Off Co's Name By ROC Post-Commencement Of Arbitration Not A Ground To Set Aside Award, Delhi H.C. Dismisses S. 34 Application

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed a Section 34 application filed by Exotic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Medors Biotech Pvt. Ltd. The bench held that an arbitral award cannot be set aside merely because the respondent company's name was struck off from the Register of Companies post-commencement of arbitral proceedings....

Exclusive Supervisory Jurisdiction Granted To Court Receiving First Application Under Arbitration Act, Bombay HC Limits Territorial Jurisdiction

The Bombay High Court bench comprising Justice Neela Gokhale held that in cases where an application has been made in a court concerning an arbitration agreement, that court alone possesses jurisdiction over an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Further, the bench held that even in agreements where no specific seat...

Claims Related To Company Are Arbitrable Even Though It Is Non-Signatory To Arbitration Agreement, Delhi High Court Reinforces GOC Doctrine

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that the disagreements related to the partners' business activities, whether conducted through the firm or the company, fall within the scope of arbitrable matters. The bench rejected the argument that the firm or the company cannot be brought forth in the arbitration proceedings since neither the firm nor the company...

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...