Arbitrator Can't Allow Damages, For Breach Of MoU To Enter Into Agreement, With No Liability Clause: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal lacks the authority to grant damages for a breach of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), particularly when the MoU serves as a preliminary agreement to enter into a definitive contract. This is especially significant when the MoU entails no financial implications and includes a clause explicitly preventing any monetary...

Signed Arbitral Award Served On Lawyer Or Agent Of The Party Doesn't Constitute A Valid Delivery : Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a copy of the signed arbitral award served only on the lawyer or the agent of the party does not constitute a valid delivery in absence of the delivery on the party itself. The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that the term 'party' under Section 31(5) of the Act refers to the actual entity who executed the...

Arbitration Act | 2G Judgment A 'Change In Law', Court Can't Set Aside Majority Award And Uphold Minority's: Delhi High Court

While dismissing a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration Act, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the 2G judgment, whereby the Supreme Court quashed the First-Come-First-Serve (“FCFS”) policy, constituted a “change in law” for grant of spectrum/licenses. “By passing the 2G judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court scrapped the FCFS Policy which was the earlier...

Arbitrator Holds Termination Of Dealership Illegal, Telangana High Court Directs IOC To Restore Dealership

The Telangana High Court has directed the Indian Oil Corporation to restore the dealership in favour of Venkateshwar Service Station holding that the arbitrator cannot pass an restoration of dealership order owing to section 14(1)(c) of the Specific Performance Act and when the arbitrator held that termination was illegal, the Corporation was bound to consider the application...

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...