Arbitration
Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: May 2023
SUPREME COURT:Referral Court Has Duty To Conclusively Decide Issue Of ‘Existence & Validity Of Arbitration Agreement’ Raised At Pre-Referral Stage: Supreme CourtCase Title: Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The Supreme Court has held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the issue of...
Plea That The Arbitrator Is De Jure Ineligible Can Be Raised As An Additional Ground To Challenge Award, Even Without Amendment Of S. 34 Petition: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that the Arbitrator is de jure ineligible to act as an Arbitrator is a plea of lack of jurisdiction. This plea can be allowed to be raised as an additional ground in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), by way of an amendment and even without the same, the court has held.The bench of...
IRCTC Being A State Under A. 12 Is Bound By Its Affidavit Before Any Court Of Law, Cannot File A Contrary Affidavit To Defeat A Claim In Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that IRCTC is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is bound by its affidavit before any court of law and it cannot file contrary affidavit before the arbitral tribunal to defeat a claim of the other party in arbitration. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also held that an arbitration award cannot be challenged on the grounds of lack...
Arbitration Clause In A Contract Perishes With Its Novation: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in an agreement would perish with its novation if the novated agreement does not contain any arbitration clause. The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the view taken by the arbitral tribunal regarding the non-arbitrability of the dispute due to the novation of the agreement that contained the arbitration clause is...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 28 May To 3 June 2023
Delhi High Court:SpiceJet Should Pay Entire Arbitral Award Of Rs 380 Crore To Its Former Promotor Kalanithi Maran: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd vs M/s SpiceJet Ltd. & Anr.The Delhi High Court has directed SpiceJet to pay the entire arbitral award of Rs. 380 crore to the airline’s former promotor, Kalanithi Maran, and his firm, Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd, in an...
Requirement To Refer The Claims To Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) Is Mandatory: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the requirement to refer the dispute to DAB, as per the GCC of FIDIC Contracts, is mandatory and the failure to comply with the provision results in making the dispute non-arbitrable. The bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul held that when the agreement between the parties provides for reference of claims to DAB as...
Extension Of Period Of Agreement By Written Communications, No Novation, The Arbitration Clause Continues To Be Operative: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that if the parties have, by written communications, extended the period of agreement, the arbitration clause that was a part of the agreement continues to be operative.The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan has distinguished between the situations wherein an arbitration clause expires with the novation of the main agreement and when the...
A Consent Foreign Award Is Enforceable Under The New York Convention: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that a consent foreign award is enforceable under the New York Convention/Part II of the A&C Act, 1996. The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held rejected the argument that consent arbitration award do not fall within the rubric of New York Convention. The Court rejected the argument that an award to be recognized under the Convention must be one based...
‘Partial Reduction In Traffic’ Due To Remote Event Of Flood Is Not A Force Majeure Event, Delhi High Court Sets Aside The Award Against NHAI
The Delhi High Court has held that ‘partial reduction in traffic’ due to a remote event of flood is not a force majeure event. The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that force majeure event contemplates a complete blockade of the road due to the floods and not mere reduction of the traffic on a particular road. The Court set aside an arbitration award passed against NHAI on the...
‘Balance Rent’ During The Lock-In Period Is A Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, Requires No Further Of Actual Loss: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has upheld an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator held that the ‘Balance Rent’ during the lock-in period is a genuine pre-estimate of loss which requires no further proof of loss. The bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that when the contract provides for payment of entire balance rent for the lock-in period if the deed is terminated before the expiry of...
The Expression “Any” Member of Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Be Read As “All Members”: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the expression “any member” contained in a clause that lays down a mandatory qualification to be appointed as arbitrator, cannot be read as “all members” of the Arbitral Tribunal. The court said that the phrase “any member” must be interpreted in the context in which it is used.The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with an...
Restrictive Clauses V. Law Of Limitation: Can The Right To Arbitration Be Restricted To A Lesser Period Than Provided Under The Limitation Act?
It is not uncommon for arbitration practitioners to come across agreements, the provisions of which are lop-sided and designed to favour the dominant party or the employer. These clauses are almost non-negotiated and one party is often made to sign on the dotted lines. These may inter alia include clauses like the requirement of mandatory pre-arbitration deposit,[1] unilateral option...