Arbitration
Arbitral Award Passed By Sole Arbitrator Appointed Unilaterally Is Without Jurisdiction And Non-Est: Delhi Court
The Commercial Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, comprising Justice Sanjay Sharma-II, held that an arbitration award passed by a sole arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the respondent is without jurisdiction and non-est. In this case a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed challenging an award passed by a sole arbitrator. Brief...
Baseless Allegations Against Arbitrators Must Be Dealt With Strictly, Arbitral Tribunals Can Hold Party In Contempt: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma has held that Arbitral Tribunals have the same power as a Civil Court in dealing with contempt against itself as per sections 17(2) and 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that baseless allegations against Arbitrators must be dealt with strictly. It observed that...
Delhi High Court Allows Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate Despite Post-Expiry Filing U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a petition filed under Section 29A of the Act is maintainable even if it is filed after the expiry of the arbitrator's mandate. Further, the court observed that this question is still pending before the Supreme Court due to a conflict of decisions of different High Courts, the view taken by Delhi High Court has...
Petition Under Article 227 Not Maintainable Against Orders Of Tribunal When Remedies U/S 34 & 37 Of Arbitration Act Are Available: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench of Justice Subahsh Vidyarthi observed that petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the petitioners to provide a copy of the contract between the parties and the final bill to the claimant, cannot be entertained. In the present case, a petition under Article 227 of...
"Any Objection Regarding Non-Applicability Of MSMED Act Can Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal U/S 16 Of A&C Act": Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court division bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gadela, while hearing an appeal, has upheld the order passed by a single-judge bench wherein it was held that the question of whether an entity was an MSME at the relevant time was to determined by the tribunal under section 16 of A&C Act and not the writ court. Facts Overview: GAIL issued...
Principle Of Judicial Non-Interference Is Fundamental To Both Domestic & International Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that it is well settled that the principle of judicial non-interference in arbitral proceedings is fundamental to both domestic as well as international commercial arbitration and that the Arbitration Act is self contained code. In this case, a petition under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act)...
Bombay High Court Reaffirms Binding Nature Of Emergency Arbitrator's Decision, Grants Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has observed that the object and intent of section 9 of the Arbitration Act is to support Arbitration and not defeat and/or permit parties to detract from the very process of arbitration. Therefore, party autonomy being the bedrock of arbitration, this would necessarily apply from the agreement to the rendering of the final arbitral...
Arbitration | Arbitral Award Must Carry Post-Award Interest As Per S. 31(7)(b) : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the post-award period shall carry a rate of interest decided as per Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). “For the reasons to follow, while allowing the appeal we have held that as this is a case arising out of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by operation of Section 31(7)(b), the sum directed to be paid...
The Interplay Between Section 33 And Section 34 Of The Arbitration Act And Its Impact On Limitation Period
Settling disputes through arbitration has become the order of the day, with the disputing parties finding it cost-effective, flexible, and fast-paced. However, the outcome of an arbitration in the form of an arbitral award, may not be satisfactory on various occasions, hence, the aggrieved party can seek recourse for setting aside such an award. In India, Section 34 of the...
Article 227 Cannot Be Invoked When Interrogatories & Discoveries Allowed By Tribunal Are Not In Nature Of Fishing Inquiry: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of review under Article 227 is extremely narrow; the same cannot be invoked when the interrogatories and discoveries allowed by the tribunal have a co-relation and nexus with the subject matter of the dispute.The bench of Justice Manoj Jain, while hearing two claim petitions, held that where the seller offered alternate plots in similar projects...
Delhi High Court Stays Decision Of Apex Council Which Altered Result Of 'Legends League' Cricket Match After Being Declared
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta, while hearing a Section 9 petition under the A&C Act, has granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the communication of Event Technical Committee (ETC) and the Apex Council which allowed the result of a cricket match to be altered after the result has been announced.Factual Overview:The petitioner is a Konark Surya...
Forum Shopping Is Abuse Of Legal Process And Cannot Be Condoned: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has held that forum shopping, i.e., such conduct, where the petitioner attempts to choose a forum favourable to them after having already approached the appropriate forum, is an abuse of legal process and cannot be condoned. Brief facts of the case: The case revolves around a dispute between Michael Builders and Developers...
