Arbitration
S.29A(4) Arbitration Act | Courts Can Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Without Parties' Consent: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that the mandate of an arbitrator can be extended under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if the parties have not extended the period by consent.Justice Murali Purushothaman thus revived and extended the arbitrator's mandate to allow for the completion of the arbitral proceedings."Sub-section (4) of Section 29A deals with...
Well Reasoned Interim Order Of Arbitral Tribunal, Courts Should Not Interfere Under Section 37 Of The A&C Act : Delhi HC
The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court under Section 37 of the A&C Act should not interfere with a reasoned order of the tribunal granting interim relief based on thorough examination of the matter. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta reiterated that as long as the arbitral tribunal has granted the interim relief to protect and preserve the subject matter of arbitration...
Court Under Section 29A Of The A&C Act Would Not Consider Issue Regarding Fees Of Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held the Court exercising power under Section 29A of the A&C Act, which provides for extension of time to conclude arbitral proceedings, is only concerned with the issue as to whether the arbitrator has acted with expedition in the matter and would not consider any issue regarding the conduct of the arbitration or the fees of the arbitral tribunal as they...
Order Of Executing Court Staying Execution Of Award Under O 21, R 26 CPC Is Within Jurisdiction: Meghalaya High Court
The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that there is no specific provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as regard execution or stay of an arbitral award. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court who stayed the execution of the award by resorting to Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was within its jurisdiction, the...
“Counter-Balancing” Not Achieved When 2/3rd Members Of The Arbitral Tribunal To Be Appointed By One Party: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a party is required to appoint an arbitrator from a panel made by the other contracting parties, it is mandatory for the panel to be sufficiently broad based, in conformity with the principle laid down by the top court in Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, (2017) 4 SCC 665. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta made...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 3 July To 9 July 2023
Calcutta High Court: Interim Relief Under The A&C Act Obtained Without Disclosing Material Evidence, Calcutta High Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 50 Thousand On Each Petitioner Case Title: Omkar Tradecomm LLP vs Mayank Agarwal The High Court of Calcutta has held that a party approaching the Court for relief must do so with clean hands and is under an obligation to disclose...
Finding Of The Tribunal Regarding The Existence Of The Arbitration Agreement Should Not Be Interfered With Unless It Is Manifestly Clear That There Was No Agreement: Calcutta High Court
The High Court of Calcutta has held the Courts, while exercising powers under Section 48 of the A&C Act, cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its view with that of the arbitral tribunal. It reiterated that the scope of judicial interference at the stage of enforcement of foreign award is limited to the grounds mentioned under Section 48 and the court is only required to...
Order Of Arbitral Tribunal Refusing To Entertain Additional Counter-Claims Filed Without An Application Under Section 23 Is Not An ‘Interim Award’: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal refusing to entertain additional counter-claims filed without making any application under Section 23 of the Act is not an ‘interim award’, therefore, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain held that order of the tribunal refusing...
Indus Water Treaty: Hague Court of Arbitration Says It Is Competent To Decide Proceedings Initiated By Pakistan; India Rejects Ruling
Rejecting India's objections, the Permanent Court Of Arbitration at The Hague has ruled that it is competent to decide the proceedings instituted by Pakistan in relation to the Indus Water Treaty in 2016. Pakistan had approached the court over the design and operation of run-of-river hydro-electric plants on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers and their tributaries. India had said the Court...
Plea That Claimant’s Claim Cannot Stand In The Absence Of A Third Entity, Can Be Raised Before The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that the claimant’s claim cannot stand in the absence of a third entity in the arbitral proceedings, is an aspect touching upon the maintainability of the claim(s) sought to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. The court said that the said plea can be urged before a duly constituted Arbitration Tribunal and the same cannot preclude...
Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: June 2023
High Courts Allahabad High Court: Facilitation Council Which Was The Conciliator Under MSMED Act, Can Arbitrate The Dispute; Bar Contained In S. 80 Of Arbitration Act Not Applicable: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Bata India Limited & Anr. vs U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council & Anr. The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the discretion given...
Arbitrator’s Name In “Hall Of Fame” On Website, Claims Denial Of Maximum Number Of INDRP Complaints, A Justifiable Apprehension To His Neutrality: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the inclusion of the arbitrator’s name in the “Hall of Fame” of a website created by him, based upon the fact that he had denied the maximum number of complaints under the “.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (INDRP), gives rise to a justifiable apprehension as to his neutrality. The court was dealing with a petition filed...