Arbitration
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 8 January to 14 January 2022
Supreme Court: Starting Point Of Limitation U/ Section 34(3) Arbitration Act In Cases Of Suo Motu Correction Of Award: Supreme Court Explains Case Title: USS Alliance versus State of Uttar Pradesh The Supreme Court has observed that the starting point for the limitation under Section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be...
Drafting Of An Arbitration Agreement – Key Checkpoints
The importance of well – drafted agreements cannot be overstated, more so in the case of Arbitration agreements which are often drafted without much thought and care, infamously referred to as mid – night clauses as they are often reviewed last moment before signing a contract. A one – size fits all approach can pose significant problems and increase time, cost and complexity of...
Award Against Guarantor Who Is Not Member Of Multi State Co-Op Society, Without Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has set aside an award passed pursuant to an arbitral reference made under Section 84(1) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), since the award debtor was not a member of the Co-operative Society. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled that a dispute, which is not covered under Section 84 (1) of the MSCS Act, would not be capable of...
Dispute Whether Partner Can Use Firm’s Trade Mark For His Own Sole Proprietorship, Can Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that disputes relating to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem are arbitrable. Thus, the bench of Justice Navin Chawla concluded that the dispute whether a partner can use the partnership firm’s trade mark for his own sole proprietorship concern, can be referred to arbitration. The Court further ruled that merely because a...
Section 34 Application Does Not Cease To Be An Application Only Because Procedural Requirements Were Not Complied: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) does not cease to be an application merely because the applicant has not complied with certain procedural requirements. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that filing an affidavit in support of...
Court Has No Jurisdiction To Review Order Passed Under Section 11 of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that orders passed in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C) cannot be reviewed since there is no provision of review contained in the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing a review petition filed against the arbitral reference made under Section 11, held that...
Starting Point Of Limitation U/Section 34(3) Arbitration Act In Cases Of Suo Motu Correction Of Award : Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court observed that the starting point for the limitation under Section 34(3) Arbitration and Concliation Act, in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the party.Once the arbitral award has been amended or corrected, it is the corrected award which has to be challenged and not the...
Arbitration Under MSMED Act For Supplies Made Prior To Registration, Void-ab-initio: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that arbitral proceedings initiated under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) relating to the services provided by the claimant before its registration under the MSMED Act, are void-ab-initio. The bench of Dr. Justice A. P. Thaker held that for initiation of proceedings like conciliation and arbitration under the...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 1 January to 7 January 2022
Bombay High Court: Dispute Between Service Providers Can’t Be Referred to Arbitration: Bombay High Court Case Title: World Phone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. versus One OTT Intertainment Ltd. In Centre The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) is a self-contained Code, intended to deal with all disputes arising out of...
Participation In The Arbitration Proceedings Cannot Be Considered To Be A Waiver Of Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere participation in the arbitration proceedings cannot be considered to be waiver of Section 12(5) that provides for ineligibility of arbitrator. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that applicability of Section 12(5) can only be waived off by an express agreement and not by the conduct of parties. The Court held that...
Non-Attestation Of Affidavit With Section 34 Application; A Procedural Irregularity; Application Valid: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that non-attestation of the affidavit accompanying the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is a mere procedural irregularity. Thus, it cannot be treated as fatal to the institution of the suit, the bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna concluded. The Court held that the application cannot be...
Order Of Emergency Arbitrator In Foreign Seated Arbitration, Can Be Considered While Dealing With Section 9 Application: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has allowed the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking interim measures granted by the Emergency Arbitrator under the ICC Arbitration Rules. The bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur noted that the A&C Act does not provide for enforcement of orders passed by an Emergency Arbitrator in cases of...