Arbitral Tribunal Acted With Patent Illegality, Against Indian Law In Awarding Reimbursement Of Service Tax Along With Interest: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that award passed by Arbitral Tribunal was tainted with patent illegality and contravened the fundamental policy of Indian law. The award was challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (act). The court set aside the award in which South Eastern Railway (railway) was directed to reimburse...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due To Failure Of Arbitrator To Disclose Conflict, Non-Supply Of Documents

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that the duty of arbitrators of disclosure of any conflicts under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and continuous throughout the proceedings. The court noted that disclosure must be in writing and a verbal disclosure does not suffice. The court also held that there was a violation of...

In Absence Of An Express Agreement Waiving Applicability Of S.12(5) Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Arbitration Clause Becomes Otiose: Patna HC

The Patna High Court bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran has held that the arbitration clause became otiose by reason of the substitution of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Act 3 of 2016, which made the Engineer-in-Chief or the administrative head of the Public Works Division ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator and disentitled from appointing...

While Adjudicating On Challenges Against Arbitral Tribunals' Orders U/S 17 Of A&C Act, Court Not Strictly Bound By O.38 & O.39 CPC: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan has held that in orders passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not bound by the principles underlying Order XXXVIII and XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code. The court observed that interference with such orders is limited to cases where the orders...

Repudiation Of Claims Making Dispute Non-Arbitrable Is For Arbitral Tribunal To Adjudicate Upon, Not Courts At Section 11 Stage: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, following the law laid down in SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning, has held that the aspects of non-arbitrability of a claim are for the arbitral tribunal to adjudicate, and courts at Section 11 stage cannot examine the same. The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, has held that post...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: September 2024

Supreme Court Courts At Referral Stage Must Not Enter Into Contested Questions Involving Complex Facts : Supreme Court Case Title: COX & KINGS LTD. VERSUS SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 38 OF 2020 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 676 The Supreme Court on Monday (Sep.9) reiterated that once there exists a valid arbitration agreement, than it would not be justifiable for the referral courts at the referral stage to venture into contested questions ...

Objections To Jurisdiction Of Arbitrator Raised U/S. 34 Must Not Be Rejected Only On Jurisdiction Without Touching Merits Of Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh has held that objections to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, which are raised in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must not be rejected only on the ground of jurisdiction, without touching the merit of the...

Three-Arbitrator Tribunal To Become Sole Arbitrator Tribunal On Failure Of Party To Appoint Its Arbitrator- Delhi High Court To Examine

The Delhi High Court has resolved to examine an arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), if the same is affected by the line of judgments following Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd, Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. United Telecoms Ltd and Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) v. Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd. The bench of Justice C....

Application Of MSMED Act And Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Over Contractual Disputes Must Be Determined By Arbitral Tribunal,Not By Court In Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has clarified the legal position of the intersection between the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash a notice requesting the parties to file their Statement...

Application U/S. 34 Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act Not To Be Dismissed For Non-filing Of Certified Copy Of Arbitral Award If Explanation Provided: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has observed that if a certified/signed copy of the award cannot be obtained and filed with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, filing a copy of the award along with an explanation would be an appropriate exercise.Background FactsThe appellant filed...

Appointment Of Arbitrator Not Unilateral If Consent Of Non-Signatory Not Taken: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the consent of a non-signatory to arbitral proceedings is not required for the appointment of the arbitrator. The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 14 petition challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction, has held that the appointment of an arbitrator without the consent of a non-signatory would not be an unilateral...

Section 14 Of Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Reiterates

The Bombay High Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes time consumed in a proceeding initiated before a Court not having the jurisdiction, applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The bench of Justice R.I. Chagla excluded 272 days spent in prosecuting a recall application of the arbitral award before the MSME Council. The court...