Arbitration and Conciliation Act | Mere Violation Of Substantive Law By Itself Not A Valid Reason To Set Aside Arbitral Award: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court while dismissing an appeal directed challenging the Commercial Court's dismissal of a Section 34 Petition against an arbitrator's award, has held that a mere contravention of substantive law by itself does not constitute a valid ground for setting aside an arbitral award subsequent to the 2015 amendment in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act). The...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 8th January-14th January 2024

Delhi High Court Arbitral Tribunal Can Award Damages For Delay Attributable To Employer Even When The Agreement Provides For The Extension Of Time As The Only Remedy To The Contractor: Delhi High Court Case Title: MBL Infrastructure Ltd v. DMRC, OMP(COMM) 311 of 2021. The High Court of Delhi has held that the Arbitral tribunal can award monetary compensation as damages for the...

Pendente Lite And Future Interest Can't Be Included In The 'Aggregate Value Of Claim And Counterclaims' U/S 12 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

ThePendente Lite And Future Interest Can't Be Included In The 'Aggregate Value Of Claim And Counterclaims' U/S 12 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court has held that to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to deal with a challenge petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the value of the pendente lite and future interest cannot be included in the aggregate value...

Arbitral Award Can't Be Challenged On Ground Of Bias Of Arbitrator If No Challenge Was Made During Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral award cannot be challenged on the ground of bias of arbitrator if no challenge to bias was made during the pendency of arbitral proceedings. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that a party that has fully participated in the arbitral proceedings without raising any challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal on ground...

Dispute Can't Be Referred To Arbitration In Absence Of An Arbitration Agreement Under Article 226 Of Constitution: Patna High Court

The High Court of Patna has held that no dispute can be referred to arbitration by a Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution when there is no agreement between the parties.The bench of Justice Partha Sarthy held that the remedy of arbitration is the creature of a contract and the same cannot be utilised in absence of a written agreement between the parties as...

Mere Negotiations Will Not Postpone The Cause Of Action For Appointment Of An Arbitrator: Telangana High Court

The High Court of Telangana has held that mere negotiations between the parties related to the dispute would not delay the cause of action for the purpose of limitation for the appointment of the arbitrator.The bench of Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy dismissed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator wherein the cause of action accrued more than 7 years before the date of the...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 1st January – 7th January

Supreme Court Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Modified Under Sections 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court Case Title: S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14 The Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law that any attempt to “modify an award” while adjudicating Sections 34 and 37 petitions is...

Arbitration Act | Section 9 Order By Subordinate Judge Acting As Commercial Court Appealable Before Commercial Appellate Court, Not HC: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently held that an order passed by a Subordinate Judge's Court acting as a Commercial Court under a Government notification, would be appealable only before the concerned Commercial Appellate Court as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, and not before the High Court, as per the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act, 1996). The Court in this case...

Arbitral Tribunal Can Award Damages For Delay Attributable To Employer Even When The Agreement Provides For The Extension Of Time As The Only Remedy To The Contractor: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the Arbitral tribunal can award monetary compensation as damages for the delay attributable to employer even when the agreement provides for the extension of time as the only remedy to the contractor. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the tribunal cannot deny damages on the ground that the agreement provides only for extension...

A Clause That Restricts The Right Of The Contractor To Seek Damages For Delay Attributable To The Employer Is Against Public Policy: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a clause that restricts the right of the contractor to seek damages for delay attributable to the employer is against public policy in terms of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held a clause that restricts the right of the aggrieved party to claim damages is prohibitionary in nature and...

Court Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Can Partially Set Aside The Award: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The High Court of Delhi has held that a Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act can sever an offending portion of the arbitral award. It held that such exercise of power amounts to partial setting aside of the award and not a modification. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh explained that modification would be when the court modifies/changes the damages...

Annual Digest of Arbitration Cases : 2023 (Part -II)

Supreme Court Will The Mandate Of The Tribunal Terminate Under Section 29A Unless Extended During Its Subsistence? Supreme Court To Examine The Supreme Court is set to examine an important issue related to the arbitration law that whether the mandate of the tribunal terminates upon the expiry of the time provided under Section 29A unless extended during its subsistence. The bench...