Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: September 2024
Mohd Talha Hasan
7 Oct 2024 1:40 PM IST
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 involving complex facts.
Emphasizing upon the doctrine of competence-competence enshrined under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), the Court said that the referral courts while deciding the petition for an appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act shall restrict its inquiry on whether there exists a valid arbitration agreement or not, and it would be impermissible for the referral courts to led the detailed inquiry into contested questions involving complex facts.
Application To Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award Maintainable Even After Expiry Of Period Under S.29A(4) : Supreme Court
Case Title: ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED, SLP(C) No. 023320 - / 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 693
In an important ruling concerning the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Supreme Court today held that an application for extending the time for passing of an arbitral award can be filed even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.
“we hold that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan said.
View That Delay Beyond 120 Days For S.37 Appeals Can't Be Condoned May Require Reconsideration: Supreme Court
Case : M/S SAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.
Case No: SLP(c) No. 21111/2024
The Supreme Court has observed that the view expressed in an earlier judgment that delay beyond the period of 120 days in preferring an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be condoned may require reconsideration.
The Court observed that in view of Section 43 of the Act, the above-said view might require reconsideration. As per Section 43, the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Non-Signatory Party's Conduct And Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court
Case Title: AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS. VERSUS JYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 727
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement is not necessarily non-binding on a non-signatory party. Such party, though not a signatory, may have intended to be bound through its conduct or relationship with the signatory parties. A referral court must determine the issue from a prima facie perspective; although, ultimately, it is the arbitral tribunal which shall decide the same based on evidence.
Mere Violation Of Law Won't Make Arbitral Award Invalid, Fundamental Policy Of Law Must Be Violated : Supreme Court
Case Title – OPG Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt Ltd. & Anr.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 738
The Supreme Court recently explained the scope for judicial interference in arbitral awards under section 34 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of violation of public policy, highlighting that it is very limited, particularly after the 2015 amendment.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra observed that mere violation of law is not enough to interfere with an award, but it must conflict with the most fundamental aspects of public policy, justice.
Case Title: PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS M/S SANMAN RICE MILLS & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 754
The Supreme Court today (Sep. 27) observed that unless the arbitral award suffers from the illegality mentioned under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), no award can be interfered with or set aside by the Appellate Courts under Section 37 of the Act.
The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal observed that the award cannot be set aside merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement, the bench added.
Judge Hearing Sec.34 Application Must Apply Mind To Grounds Of Challenge: Supreme Court
Case Details : KALANITHI MARAN Versus AJAY SINGH AND ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 520
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 26) stressed fon the need for High Courts to ensure that orders dealing with challenges to arbitral awards precisely reflect adequate application of judicial mind on the merits of the case.
The Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the order of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court which has set aside the Single Bench order upholding the arbitral award of Rs. 270 crore against cash-strapped SpiceJet and its chairman, Ajay Singh. The impugned order was challenged by Kalinithi Maran in whose favor the award stood.
High Courts:
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Sanjit Singh Salwan And 4 Others v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan And 2 Others
Case No: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 356 of 2024
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes relating to public trusts which are enlisted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar further held that Section 89 of CPC which provides for settlement of disputes outside Court does not override Section 92 as Section 92 is a specific provision dealing with disputes regarding Trusts.
Receipt Of Arbitral Award By Party A Sine Qua Non For Limitation U/S 34(3) To Begin, General Clauses Act Does Not Apply: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Madan Pal Singh And 2 Others v. M/S Ambika Installments Limited And Another
Case No. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 8 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court has held that receipt of the award by the party is a sine qua non for limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to begin and definition of “service by post” under Section 27 of the General Clauses does not apply.
The Court observed that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act which defined service by post in a Central Legislation if the words 'serve' or either of the expressions 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used to mean that service is deemed to be effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. It was, thus, held that this definition is not applicable to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act as it uses the phrase 'receipt of award by the party'.
Bombay High Court
Personal Hearings Not Always Necessary For Arbitrator Appointment If Pleadings Are Complete: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Universal Builders In the matter between : Vascon Engineers Limited Versus Universal Builders
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (LODG.) NO. 23757 OF 2024 IN COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L.) NO. 17767 OF 2023
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that while personal hearings for all parties can be beneficial in proceedings to enforce the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6), it is not always necessary.
The bench held that when an arbitration agreement is clearly established in the pleadings and the dispute is not evidently stale or time-barred, it is unnecessary to delay the consideration of an application under Section 11. It noted that if the pleadings are complete and all relevant issues are adequately documented, the application should be considered without requiring additional personal hearings.
Calcutta High Court
Applicants Seeking Pandemic Relaxation For Limitation Under Section 34 Petition Cannot Simultaneously Claim IBC Moratorium Protection: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Marg Limited Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Connected Matters
Case Number: AP-COM/398/2024 and connected matters
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC.
The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic initially prevented it from filing the application on time.
No Prior Request Under Section 21 Needed For Section 11 Arbitration Applications: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Kakali Khasnobis Vs Mrs Reeta Paul And Anr.
Case Number: AP-COM/701/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21.
The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is distinct from a situation under Section 11(5), where prior notice is necessary only for the appointment of an arbitrator, not for the initiation of the proceeding itself.
Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Justified If Applicant's Rights Are Not Protected From Third Parties: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Case Number: AP-COM/608/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous.
Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ranajit Guha Roy and Anr. vs Sankar Kumar Halder
Case Number: AP/861/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that allegations of a party's signature on an arbitration agreement being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation are matters that can be decided by the arbitrator and can't be resolved by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench further observed that the arbitral tribunal, similar to a civil court, has the authority to appoint experts when complex issues, such as those involving fraud or misrepresentation, require expert opinion.
The Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Re-interpret Contracts While Examining Patent Illegality : Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd vs SRMB Srijan Ltd
Case Number: EC/80/2023 [GA/2/2023]; AP-COM/281/2024 [Old No: AP/833/2022]; IA NO: GA/2/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence under the guise of patent illegality, as per the proviso to Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It remarked that the Court cannot be sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's decision and cannot re-interpret the contract differently from the Tribunal without evidence of patent illegality.
Case Title: Baid Power Services Private Limited vs The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited
Case Number: EC/5/2024, AP/757/2023, AP/758/2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the time spent in a writ petition on the same cause of action can be excluded from the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitration Clause In Original Lease Deed Incorporated Into Deed Of Assignment When Deeds Are Interconnected And Consistent: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Tata Communications Limited Vs Rudrapriya Constructions LLP and Anr.
Case Number: AP/77/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment. The bench held that interrelationship was not merely superficial but indicative of a deliberate and mutual intent between the parties to incorporate certain terms from the initial lease deed into the new agreement.
Disputes Exceeding Rent Control Act Threshold Are Arbitrable If Lease Agreement Includes Arbitration Clause: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Tapan Kumar Samaddar Vs Sagar Jagdish Daryani And Anr.
Case Number: AP/163/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that when the total monthly payable amount surpasses the threshold for invoking the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the dispute becomes subject to arbitration if the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause.
Composite Reference Can't Be Made Of Disparate Causes Of Action: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Secretary Ganaudyog Bazar Unnayan and Service Co-operative Society Limited vs Iris Health Services Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/716/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that composite reference to an Arbitral Tribunal cannot be made for disparate causes of action in different agreements with different parties as it contravenes the principles of privity, confidentiality, and party autonomy.
Case Title: Gita Refractories Pvt Ltd Vs Tuaman Engineering Limited
Case Number: AP-COM/707/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that Section 18 of the MSME Act does not create any substantive rights or liabilities but simply offers an alternative method for resolving disputes outside of court proceedings.
The bench held that if a party involved in a dispute chooses to pursue arbitration independently under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, the MSME Act does not restrict the claimant from doing so.
Compliance With Pre-Arbitration Formalities Not Mandatory; Can Be Waived By Consensus: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Jayashree Electromech Private Limited v. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited
Case Number: AP-COM No. 751 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that compliance of the pre-arbitration stages can be waived by consensus. The court observed that forcing the petitioner back to the rigmarole of pre-arbitration formalities would be an unnecessary and futile exercise.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Rs. 780 Crore Arbitration Award In Favour Of Reliance Infrastructure, Refuses Pre Award Interest
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation vs. Reliance Infrastructure Limited
Case Numbers: APO 203 of 2023 with AP 40 of 2020 & APO 204 of 2023 with AP 40 of 2020
The Calcutta High Court division bench, comprising Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, has upheld the arbitral award amounting to Rs 780 crore in favour of Reliance Infrastructure Limited, with the exception of relief on pre-award interest and reduction in the rate of interest on bank guarantee. The court observed that the grant of pre-award interest was patently illegal, thereby, setting aside the interest awarded for the period prior to the award date.
Delhi High Court
Legality Of Arbitrator's Appointment Can't Be Challenged In Petitions For Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Apex Buildsys Ltd. Vs Vadera Interiors And Exteriors and connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 956
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that objections related to the legality of an arbitrator's appointment cannot be raised in a petition seeking an extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
No Denial Of Opportunity When Arbitrator Allowed Claimants To Submit Additional Affidavit Revealed In Respondent's Response-Affidavit: Delhi High Court
Case Title: DD Auto Pvt Ltd Vs Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 957
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that there is no denial of opportunity when the arbitrator permitted the claimants to submit an additional affidavit by way of examination-in-chief which came to light for the first time in the response-affidavit filed by the Respondent.
Correspondence Stating Non-Arbitrability Of Dispute Due To Negotiable Instruments Act Proceedings Implies Recognition Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S. Dhanlaxmi Sales Corporation Vs Boston Scientific India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 958
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that correspondence from a party stating that ongoing proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 barred initiation of arbitration implicitly acknowledged the existence of the arbitration clause.
Administrative Lethargy Of Government Machinery Not Valid Ground For Delay Condonation In Arbitration Appeals: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union Of India Vs Rishabh Constructions Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 959
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that nature of administrative lethargy of the Government machinery is not a satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay in submitting an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitrator's Discussion On Claims And Costs Exceeds Jurisdiction If Not As Per Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ram Chander Aggarwal Vs Ram Kishan Aggarwal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 960
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that if an arbitrator concludes that she was not appointed according to the arbitration clause, then any discussion on the merits of the claims and the award of costs against the Respondents exceeds the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
Arbitral Tribunal Is Final Decision-Maker; Court Interference Only For Perverse Or Implausible Awards: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Delhi Skills Mission Society Vs Samuel Foundation Charitable India Trust
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 964
The Delhi High Court divison bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that Arbitral Tribunal serves as the ultimate decision-maker on all matters. The bench held that interference by the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only warranted if the Tribunal's decision is deemed perverse or implausible.
Order In Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Based On Settlement Is Enforceable As Decree : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Anand Gupta & Anr. Vs M/S. Almond Infrabuild Private Limited & Anr. And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 986
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree in accordance with Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Twelve-Month Period For Arbitral Award Begins From Completion Of Pleadings, Not Statement Of Defense: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Emco Limited Vs Delhi Transco Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 988
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when read with Section 29A(4), implies that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates if the tribunal does not issue the award within twelve months of completing the pleadings under Section 23(4).
The bench held that the twelve-month period is to be calculated from the completion of pleadings, not from the date of filing the Statement of Defense (SOD).
Absence Of Monetary Claim In Section 21 Notice Doesn't Negate Existence Of Dispute: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd Vs Deepti Gambhir Proprietor Of S P Distributors And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 993
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that due to the broad interpretation of the term "dispute," the court cannot definitively conclude that no dispute exists between the parties, even in the absence of a monetary claim by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitrator Can't Assume Arbitral Seat Without Clear Agreement From Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union Of India Vs Arsh Constructions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 994
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that parties in arbitration can agree to an arbitral seat at a neutral location, different from where the contract was executed, the work was carried out, or the arbitration proceedings were conducted. However, such a decision must first reflect mutual agreement and, secondly, must be documented, either explicitly in writing or recorded by the Arbitrator or the Court in an order.
Non-Compliance With Share Purchase Agreement; Arbitrability Of Dispute Must Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal, Not By Court: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Thriving Farm Builders Pvt Ltd And Anr Vs Sushil Chaudhary And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 995
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that argument claiming the dispute is non-arbitrable due to non-compliance with the Share Purchase Agreement cannot be addressed by the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that such aspects need to be addressed by the arbitral tribunal.
The Arbitral Tribunal May Implead A Non-Signatory To The Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indraprastha Power Generation Company Ltd v. Hero Solar Energy Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 996
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) has held in the affirmative whether the arbitral tribunal may implead a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in the proceedings. Following the ratio in Cox and Kings Ltd v. Sap India Pvt Ltd (Cox and Kings II), it observed that whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement is for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide and not the Section 11 Court.
Mere Arbitration Clause In Invoices Insufficient, Express Or Implicit Acceptance Of Terms Of Invoices Necessary: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Mr. Mohammad Eshrar Ahmed Vs M/S Tyshaz Buildmart India Private Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 105/2023, I.A. 22122/2023
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that simply including an arbitration clause in invoices does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement. The High Court held that since the applicant neither expressly nor implicitly accepted the terms of the invoices, it could not be deemed to be bound by any arbitration agreement.
Party Ignores Section 21 Notice; Should Seek Court Intervention, Arbitrator Can't Unilaterally Summon Parties: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Meenakshi Agrawal Vs M/S Rototech
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 998
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that if a party seeking arbitration faces a situation where the opposing party does not respond to a Section 21 notice or refuses to agree to arbitration, the only recourse is to approach the Court under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, depending on the circumstances. The bench held that party cannot unilaterally grant jurisdiction to the arbitrator, even if the arbitrator is already named. Similarly, it held that the arbitrator cannot independently summon the opposing party to attend the arbitration proceedings.
All Arbitration Proceedings Must Be Filed In Court With Jurisdiction Over The Arbitral Seat: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bcc Developers And Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 999
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once the arbitral seat is established, all proceedings, including the initial ones, must be filed only in the court that has jurisdiction over the arbitral seat. The bench held that no other Court is authorized to handle any matters related to the arbitration.
Contempt Proceedings Inappropriate For Resolving Complex Disputed Factual Issues: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Morgan Ventures Limited Vs Nepc India Limited And Other & Ors. And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1000
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the contempt proceedings are not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed factual issues such as conducting a detailed accounting analysis to determine the fairness or justification of accounting practices.
Referral Court Under Section 11 Can't Decide The Arbitrability of Non-Notified Claim: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1003
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding a Section 11 application, has held that a referral court under Section 11 cannot examine the arbitrability of non-notified claims. After the SBI General Insurance Co Ltd v. Krish Spinning judgment, the arbitral tribunal will decide on the arbitrability of disputes.
Arbitrator Justified In Treating Loan Admission In Correspondence As Admitted Claim Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shutham Electric Ltd. Vs Vaibhav Raheja & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
The Delhi High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that when a party makes a clear admission of owing a loan in its contemporaneous correspondence, the arbitrator is justified in treating it as an admitted claim under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Case Title: Prime Interglobe Private Limited v. Super Milk Products Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1032
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 34 petition, has held that any party can benefit from the second part of Section 34(3) when calculating the limitation period. The statute's language does not specify who should request under Section 33. Therefore, the benefit of calculating the limitation period from the date of disposal of the Section 33 application is available to both parties.
Delhi High Court Stays Arbitral Awards Due To Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator
Case Title: M/s PGL Estatecon Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Jyoti Enterprises
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1036
The Delhi High Court bench presided by Justice C. Hari Shankar has stayed the execution of two arbitral awards, holding that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent, without court intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act, rendered the arbitration proceedings invalid ab initio.
Case Title: Grand Motors Sale And Services Pvt Ltd v. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1037
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that when the seat of the arbitration is contractually fixed, only those Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the seat would have the curial jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Following the dictum in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd, the court held that the High Court of Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petition
Case Title: Poonam Mittal v. Creat Ed Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, has held that Sub-section (6) pertaining to substitute the arbitrator is there to further the purpose of Section 29A.
Case Title: Yves Saint Laurent v. Brompton Lifestyle Brands Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal, has held that the right of a party to file a Section 14 petition seeking to terminate the mandate of the tribunal is not curtailed because the party had previously filed a Section 16 application before the tribunal and lost.
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat High Court Flags Arbitrator Bias, Confirms Setting Aside Arbitral Award On Grounds Of Patent Illegality
Case Title: Sentinel Properties Private Limited vs. Legal Heir of Deceased Atul Dhirajlal Amin Viral Atulbhai Amin s/o Late Atulbhai Amin
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 135
The Gujarat High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, has held that agreements for the sale of agricultural land to non-agriculturists are invalid under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act unless necessary permissions from the Collector are obtained. The court observed that the agreement, executed through a Power of Attorney, was a contingent contract, conditional on securing this sanction. The bench noted that specific performance could still be decreed. However, if such permissions were not obtained, the contract would be rendered unenforceable. The court also addressed the apprehension of bias of the arbitrator, holding that the arbitrator's prior association with a key stakeholder in the claimant company raised 'justifiable doubts' regarding independence and impartiality.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tossing Award File From One Table To Other By State Not Enough To Condone Delay ; Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: State of H.P. and another vs M/s Mengi Engineering Company
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 54
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that the explanation for the delay in filing objections under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is insufficient to justify condoning the delay if it appears that the file was merely tossed from one table to the other by the State.
Madras High Court
Case Title: The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.KaThe Project Director, National Highways No.45E & 220, National Highways Authority of India vs M.Mallika Begam and anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has held that the administrative reason alone cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 950 days in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that delays attributable to administrative factors, such as changes in project management or internal procedural adjustments, do not constitute valid grounds for extending the limitation period for filing an appeal
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Movie Time Cinemas Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Chetak Cinema
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 263
The Rajasthan High Court bench comprising Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati has held that the invocation of an arbitration clause, which required the Applicant to name an Arbitrator, is valid under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even without naming an arbitrator in the legal notice, as long as the existence of an arbitration agreement is prima facie established. The Court reiterated the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration matters.
Telangana High Court
Commercial Courts Empowered To Hear Commercial Original Petition Arising From Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: Narayana Educational Institutions v. Mrs Paruchuri Janaki and Anr.
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 2243 of 2024
The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarsini has held that commercial courts are competent courts to hear the Commercial Original Petition arising from Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in terms of specified value, territorial jurisdiction and the nature of the dispute i.e., commercial dispute.
Case Title: Mrs. Kurnuda Sreenivasa Sasikanth vs. M/S Ananya Child Development and Early
Case Number: Arbitration Application No.100 of 202
The Telangana High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe has held that a valid notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a mandatory requirement for invoking arbitration, and its absence renders an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Act non-maintainable.
Arbitral Tribunal Is The Fulcrum And The Facilitator For Taking Evidence Under Section 27 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: V. Sreenivas Reddy v. B.L. Rathnamma
Case Number: CRP/2401/2024
The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini, while dismissing a Civil Revision Petition (CRP), has held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the fulcrum and the facilitator under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. The Bench further held that only Arbitral Tribunal can make a representation before a Court under Section 27(5).
