Arbitration
Insufficiently Stamped Agreement Is Only Against Stamp Act, Can’t Be A Ground To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that though in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs M/s Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 495, an Agreement containing an arbitration clause which is not properly stamped, cannot be admitted in evidence. However, once the Agreement has been admitted in evidence by the Arbitrator, who...
Arbitrator Can’t Decide Claims On Mathematical Derivations In Absence Of Evidence : Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitrator cannot decide the claims of a party based on mathematical calculation/derivations without any actual evidence supporting such claims by showing the actual amount incurred by the party claiming damages before the tribunal. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an arbitral award when it involves financial claims relying on...
Objections U/S 36 Of The A&C Act Permissible Only On Issues Relating To Patent Or Inherent Lack Of Jurisdiction Of The Tribunal: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the objections under Section 36 of the A&C Act permissible only on issues relating to patent or inherent lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal. The Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that challenge to an arbitral award can only be on the grounds enshrined under Section 34 of the Act, nevertheless, it is permissible to raise...
Arbitration: Review Of Section 11 Petition Order Can’t Be Sought On Subsequent Decision Of Supreme Court In N.N. Global: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a review of the court’s order allowing the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be sought on the basis of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. vs Indo Unique Flame Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 495. The respondent, Zesty Foods, sough a review of the...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 17 July To 23 July 2023
Calcutta High Court: Party’s Right To Choose Arbitrator Cannot Be Revived Once It Is Surrendered To Court U/S 11(6) Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Seirra Infraventure Private Limited The Calcutta High Court has recently held that when a party forfeits its right to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with Section 11 of...
Non-Consideration Of Clause In Agreement: Can’t Say Opposed To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Law: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that non-consideration of a clause of the Agreement executed between the parties, cannot be said to be an error made by the arbitral tribunal which is opposed to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The court added that the same also cannot render the arbitral award patently illegal if the view of the Arbitrator is a plausible one. The bench...
Patna High Court Appoints Justice Mridula Mishra As Arbitrator In Educomp Solutions Vs BSEDC Dispute
The Patna High Court has appointed Justice Mridula Mishra, its former judge, as an independent arbitrator to resolve the ongoing dispute between Educomp Solutions Ltd and Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited.. The dispute dates back to an agreement signed in 2010, involving a three-year contract under the Build, Own, Operate and Transfer framework for the ICT School...
Party’s Right To Choose Arbitrator Cannot Be Revived Once It Is Surrendered To Court U/S 11(6) Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that when a party forfeits its right to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration act”), then it cannot subsequently “trace back its steps” to revive such a right, for the substitution of a fresh panel of arbitrators, when the existing arbitrator becomes de jure/de...
A ‘Medium’ Enterprise Can Approach MSEF Council If It Was A ‘Micro Or Small’ Enterprise At The Relevant Time: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has Court held that the relevant date under the MSMED Act is the date of agreement and additionally the date on which the goods and services were supplied, therefore, a ‘medium’ enterprise can maintain a claim before MSEFC if it was a either a micro or a small enterprise at the relevant time. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that any...
Mere Grant Of Extension Of Time To Contractor Does Not Necessarily Mean That NHAI Was Responsible For The Delays: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere recommendation by Independent Engineer (IE) for Extension of Time (EOT) to the contractor does not necessarily mean the NHAI was responsible for the delays in the completion of the project work. The division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that when the agreement between the parties provides for compensation and...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 10 July To 16 July 2023
Supreme Court: Can Ineligible Person Appoint Arbitrator? Supreme Court Defers Hearing As Centre Is Considering Reforms To Arbitration & Conciliation Act Case Title: Central Organisation for Railway Electrification vs. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to defer for two months the hearing of a reference which raises the...
Writ Against Order Under Section 16 Of A&C Act; Maintainable Only In Exceptional Cases: Delhi High Court Reiterates
The Delhi High Court has held that a writ petition against an order of arbitral tribunal rejecting an application under Section 16 of A&C Act is maintainable only in exceptional cases. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Vidya Drolia, the disputes falling under RDB Act, 1993 would be non-arbitrable as the DRT would have the...