HC Can Invoke Article 227 To Interfere With Commercial Court's Order If It Suffers From Erroneous Interpretation Of Law: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227, had observed that the interpretation of Section 42 of the A&C Act by the District Judge while returning the Section 34 petition to be filed before the High Court was completely erroneous. The Court exercised the supervisory jurisdiction...

No Compensation Can Be Awarded As Consequence Of Breach In Absence Of Any Legal Injury: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Mr. Prateek Jalan held that no compensation can be awarded as a consequence of breach of a contract, in the absence of any resulting legal injury. Although the extent of loss or damage is not required to be proven, the fact that loss or damage has been suffered must be established, even to claim liquidated damages or...

Jurisdiction Under Articles 226/227 Of Constitution Cannot Be Invoked When Order Passed By Arbitral Tribunal Is Procedural: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the question of maintainability of a writ petition in relation to arbitration proceedings is well settled. The jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot be invoked where the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals are procedural in nature. Brief Facts Lalit Mohan,...

Arbitrator Is Final Arbiter On Facts And Law, Interference U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Only Permissible When Findings Are Perverse: Delhi Court

The Commercial Court, Delhi Bench of Justice Ms. Hemani Malhotra held that the scope of interference is only where the findings of the Tribunal is either contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties , or ex-facie, perverse, that interference by the Court is absolutely necessary. The Arbitrator/Tribunal is the final arbiter on facts as well as in law, and even error,...

Arbitration Proceedings Before Improperly Constituted Arbitral Tribunal Are Non-Est: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held where the appointment procedure is invalid, any proceedings before an improperly constituted arbitral tribunal are non-est. Also, this would not prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the act.Additionally, the court held that whether a particular claim is precluded from arbitration on account of being...

Non-Signatories Bound By Arbitration Agreement If Their Actions Align With Those Of Signatories: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if a non-signatory party actively participates in the performance of a contract, and its actions align with those of the other members of the group, it gives the impression that the non-signatory is a “veritable” party to the contract which contains the arbitration agreement. Based on this impression, the other party may...

Quarterly Digest Of Arbitration Cases (July-September 2024)

Supreme Court Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445 Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July...

Court Under S.9 Of Arbitration Act Can Grant Interim Measure To Protect Property From Being 'Wasted' While Hearing Appeal U/S 37: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the court in the exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, is not obligated to consider the merits or otherwise of the facts as stated by the litigants. Suffice it to state that the High Court under Section 9 of the Act is empowered to exercise jurisdiction as an interim measure...

Pre-Arbitral Resolution Clauses Are Directory, Not Mandatory, Especially in Cases Requiring Urgent Adjudication: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that any pre-condition in an arbitration agreement obliging one of the contracting parties to either exhaust the pre-arbitral amicable resolution avenues or to take recourse to Conciliation are directory and not mandatory. Additionally, the court held that the disputes between the parties require urgent adjudication, it would...

Stamp Act Not Enacted To Arm Litigant With “Weapon Of Technicality”: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has observed that “the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments and it has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to counter and oppose the case of its adversary.” Brief Facts: The Petitioner had sought cancellation of a sale deed executed...

Eviction Order Under Public Premises Act Doesn't Bar Arbitration For Contractual Disputes : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act would not come in the way while invoking the arbitration clause upon filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator to decide contractual disputes.The bench comprising Justice PS...

Non-Compete Clause Is Invalid Post-Termination Of Contract As It Results In Restraint Of Trade: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Injunction

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil has held that though a non-compete clause can operate validly during the term of the agreement. But it would not be valid post-termination of the agreement as it would result in restraint of trade prohibited by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Additionally, the court noted that it is required...