Arbitration
Intention Of Parties As To Seat Of Arbitration Can Be Determined From Their Conduct: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the intention of the parties to an agreement, as to the seat of arbitration, can be determined from their conduct.Justice N. Nagaresh was dealing with a case where the Sale Contract between the parties prescribed Haridwar as the seat of arbitration but the subsequent High Sea Sale Agreement prescribed Kollam as the seat.While determining the...
Rights Under An Agreement Are Superseded By A Subsequent One? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the arbitration clause relates to the resolution of disputes between the parties and not the performance of the contract and thus, the arbitration agreement survives even if the contract comes to an end. The single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the issue whether the rights of parties under an agreement are superseded by...
Amazon - Future Group Arbitration- Delhi High Court Dismisses Future's Application Being Interlocutory
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd., challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal allowing Amazon's application for amendment of Claims, seeking repudiatory damages for breach of Agreements executed with Future Coupons. The Court ruled that the said order was interlocutory in nature, and thus, it is not amenable to challenge...
Challenge Under Section 17 Of The SARFAESI Act Against Action Taken By Secured Creditor, Would Not Bar Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that arbitration proceedings and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) can go hand in hand. The single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that even if a party intended to take action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing a petition...
Acceptance Of Goods Does Not Constitute Acceptance To Arbitration Clause, Unilaterally Included In Delivery Challan: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that unilaterally including a clause in the Delivery Challan would not constitute an arbitration agreement between the parties merely because the opposite party had accepted the delivery of goods and had signed the Delivery Challan certifying the acceptance of goods. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that in order to constitute...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13 November To 19 November, 2022
Delhi High Court: Invalidity Of The Appointment Procedure Would Not Render The Entire Arbitration Clause Invalid: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. versus NTPC The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the procedure for the appointment of the arbitrator has become invalid due to 2015 amendment act, the same would not render the...
Non-Participation Of Defendant Is Good For Compliance Of Sec 12-A Of The Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that the failure of the defendant to participate in the Pre-Institution Mediation suffice the requirement of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the consent of the plaintiff for instituting the pre-suit meditation would be irrelevant if the...
Extension Of Limitation For Section 34 Application, Is Not Contingent On Merits Of Section 33 Application: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the benefit of extension of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), by virtue of an application filed under Section 33, for correction and interpretation of award, would not apply solely to the parties making the request under Section 33. The single bench of Justice...
Invalidity Of The Appointment Procedure Would Not Render The Entire Arbitration Clause Invalid: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the procedure for the appointment of the arbitrator has become invalid due to 2015 amendment act, the same would not render the entire arbitration clause invalid. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that there are several elements present in an arbitration clause such as procedure for appointment of arbitrator, law...
Arbitration Survives Even If Arbitration Under MSMED Act Declared Non-Maintainable: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has ruled that once a dispute is referred to the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), if the Facilitation Council adjudicates the dispute on merits, such decision would operate as res judicata and would bar the institution of arbitral proceedings in respect of the same dispute. However, the...
Section 12(5) Of A&C Act Applies To Proceedings Commenced Before Or After The 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that Section 12(5) that provides for grounds of ineligibility of arbitrator would apply regardless whether the notice of arbitration was given before or after the 2015 amendment came into force provided that the appointment was made on a date Section 12(5) was in force. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that in view of Section...
Sec.19 Of MSMED Act Applies To All Kinds Of Challenges : Gujarat High Court
The High Court of Gujarat has held that Section 19 of MSMED Act, which provides for 75% deposit of the awarded amount as a pre-condition to challenging any order, award or decree passed in favour of the supplier, applies to all challenge applications regardless of whether the decree, award, order was passed by MSME Council, independent arbitration or the Court. The bench of Justice...