Arbitration Monthly Digest: November, 2024
Mohd Talha Hasan
2 Dec 2024 8:00 PM IST
Supreme Court
Case Title: International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd Versus Kamarajar Port Limited,
Case Number- Civil Appeal No 12097 of 2024
Recently, the Supreme Court disapproved of a High Court's decision to exempt a government entity from depositing other amounts in addition to the arbitral award amount as a condition precedent for seeking a stay on the enforcement of the award just because the government entity was not a flight risk.
The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the law qua arbitration proceedings cannot be differently applied merely because of the status of the respondent-entity as a statutory undertaking.
Arbitral Tribunal May Impose Costs On Party Abusing Referral Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Compel Another's Participation In Arbitration : Supreme Court
Case Title: ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKH VERSUS ASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. & ANR., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2019
Citation :2024 LiveLaw (SC) 868
The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, the Arbitral Tribunal may impose costs on the Party who abused the process of law constraining another party to participate in the Arbitral Proceedings by taking advantage of minimal judicial interference at the referral stage.
“In order to balance such a limited scope of judicial interference with the interests of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the Tribunal ultimately finds to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to the arbitration.”, the court said.
Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Clauses In Public-Private Contracts Invalid; Can't Compel Selection Of Arbitrators From PSU's Panels : Supreme Court
Case details : CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION vs. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY C.A. No. 009486 - 009487 / 2019
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874
The Supreme Court on Friday (November 8) ruled against clauses allowing Public Sector Undertakings to unilaterally appoint arbitrators to decide disputes with private contractors.
The Constitution Bench held that while PSUs can maintain a panel of potential arbitrators, they cannot compel the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel.
The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was considering the validity of an arbitration clause which prescribes that the appointment of the arbitrator will happen from a panel of arbitrators curated by one of the parties, which is mostly a public sector undertaking (PSU) in majority of the cases.
Determining 'Seat' In International Arbitration : Supreme Court Takes Shift From 'Closest Connection Test', Says Express Designation Of Place Matters
Case Title: M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. VERSUS M/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE, ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 31 OF 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 871
In a key ruling on International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement grants non-exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign court, that court is considered the "seat of arbitration." The Court reaffirmed the BALCO principle that Indian courts lack supervisory jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for arbitrations seated abroad.
Taking a shift from the 'Close Connection Test' to determine the seat of the arbitration, the Court observed that “the more appropriate criterion for determining the seat of arbitration in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court is that where in an arbitration agreement there is an express designation of a place of arbitration anchoring the arbitral proceedings to such place, and there being no other significant contrary indicia to show otherwise, such place would be the 'seat' of arbitration even if it is designated in the nomenclature of 'venue' in the arbitration agreement.”
Unconditional Withdrawal Of Arbitrator Appointment Application Bars Second Application On Same Cause Of Action: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S HPCL BIO-FUELS LTD. VERSUS M/S SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12233 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 879
The Supreme Court observed that when a party seeking appointment of an arbitrator unconditionally withdraws its application, then the subsequent application for an appointment of an arbitrator on the same cause of action would be barred.
The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala ruled that Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) would be made applicable to applications seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) to restrain the party from filing second arbitrator appointment application when it had abandoned (unconditionally withdrawn the application without leave to file fresh application) the arbitration in its first application.
S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court
Case Title: GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court
Case Title: GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.
“The scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is limited to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. In the present case, the High Court exceeded this limited scope by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix. The High Court erroneously proceeded to assess the auditor's report in detail and dismissed the arbitration application. In our view, such an approach does not give effect to the legislative intent behind the 2015 amendment to the Act, 1996 which limited the judicial scrutiny at the stage of Section 11 solely to the prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.”, the bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.
Case Title: M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS GENERAL MANAGER & ANR., SLP (C) NO. 2272 OF 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Extending the time for an arbitral tribunal to pass its award, the Supreme Court recently observed that extension can be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period and the phrase "sufficient cause" under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should take color from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process (ie facilitating effective dispute resolution).
"The meaning of 'sufficient cause' for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process. The primary objective in rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted by the parties. Therefore, 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution", said a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta.
High Courts
Allahbad High Court
Since Award Is A Deemed Decree, Execution Can Be Initiated Anywhere Where Decree Can Be Executed: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: National Highway Authority Of India And Another Versus Jagpal Singh And 2 Others
Case Reference: 2024:AHC:175916
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari affirmed that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be initiated anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed and there is no requirement of obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding
Whether Non-Signatory Bound By Arbitration Agreement Can Be Decided By Tribunal, Not Referral Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad HC
Case Title: Ram Taulan Yadav And Another versus Himanshu Kesarwani And 2 Others
Case Reference: ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 95 of 2023
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta affirmed that referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act stage cannot examine as to whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement or not. Such an issue requires factual determination which can be decided by the arbitral tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India v. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited And Another
Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 423 of 2024
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that cases where appointment of arbitrators is through contracts which contemplate such appointment and statutory appointment of arbitrators are two separate classes to cases and the same are distinguishable on facts.
National Highways Authority of India approached the High Court against order of the Additional District Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby it was held that the compensation granted to the respondent was not in accordance with law.
Bonbay High Court
Party Can Waive Arbitrator's Ineligibility U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act By Express Agreement In Writing: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/S. TRULY PEST SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PRINCIPAL CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 583
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil affirmed that once an ineligibility to act as Arbitrator is waived by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, waiving party is prohibited from claiming ineligibility of the Arbitrator for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the petitioner had waived the ineligibility of the arbitrator by sending a signed letter.
High Court As Court Of Record Can Recall Or Review Orders Passed U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Shailesh Ranka and others Vs. Windsor Machines Limited and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 585
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Manish Pitale has held that the moment it becomes clear that the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is being exercised by the “High Court” and not by an authority in the form of the “Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him”, there can be no confusion about the fact that as a constitutional court and court of record, this Court can exercise power of review even in the context of order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the court passed the impugned order in which application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed by misconstruing the facts of the case.
Court Cannot Go Into Merits While Enforcing Foreign Award U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Neilan International Co Ltd vs Powerica Ltd
Case Reference:COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 416 OF 2019
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S Doctor has held that jurisdiction of enforcement court under section 48 of the Arbitration is very limited and while enforcing the award the court cannot go into the merits of the case.
Case Title: Gulshan Townplanners LLP v. Gulshan Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Anr.
Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 34078 of 2023
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that Section 9 of the A&C Act is not the correct mechanism to obtain relief against an entity when the privity of contract is absent between
Calcutta High Court
Composite Reference May Be Made When Two Contracts Are So Intertwined That Separate Arbitral Proceedings Would Prejudice Parties: Calcutta HC
Case Title: SMT SONIA DHIR AND ANR. VS PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIMITED
Citation : AP/179/2024
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya affirmed that when two or more contracts are so intertwined with each other so as to prejudice the parties should separate arbitrations be held, a composite reference of both the contracts can be made to the Arbitrator.
Award In Which Vital Evidence Are Not Considered Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality U/S 34: Calcutta HC
Case Title: MINTECH GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED – CEMENTDIVISION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya affirmed that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that if there is a perversity in the award insofar as the non-consideration of vital evidence is concerned, the same tantamounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian Law as well as gives rise to a patent illegality, which is a sufficient ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Calcutta High Court Injuncts State Govt, WBIDC From Disposing Of Property In KMC Area Over Essex Arbitral Award Case
Case Title: ESSEX DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS MAURITIUS LIMITED VS GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER
Case Reference: EC-COM/447/2024
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has injuncted the West Bengal Government and WBIDC from disposing of subject matter of the Award in the execution petition filed by the award-holder in Essex case.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Enforcement Of Foreign Award Cannot Be Refused U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Unless It Is Against Public Policy: Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Bulk Trading S.A. Having versus Mahendra Sponge And Power Ltd.
Case Reference: ARBAP No. 9 of 2023 and ARBAP No. 10 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari has held that enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused under section 48 of the Arbitration Act unless it is shown that the award is against the public policy of India. The court further observed that even during Covid-19 pandemic, the Banking Sector continued to provide essential services and in the Notification, said Sector is under exception, so the award(s) could not be said to be contrary to public policy of India.
Enforcement Of Foreign Award Cannot Be Refused U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Unless It Is Against Public Policy: Chhattisgarh HC
Case Title: Bulk Trading S.A. Having versus Mahendra Sponge And Power Ltd.
Case Reference: ARBAP No. 9 of 2023 and ARBAP No. 10 of 2023
The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari has held that enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused under section 48 of the Arbitration Act unless it is shown that the award is against the public policy of India. The court further observed that even during Covid-19 pandemic, the Banking Sector continued to provide essential services and in the Notification, said Sector is under exception, so the award(s) could not be said to be contrary to public policy of India.
Delhi High Court
Not Every Legal Mistake Made by Arbitral Tribunal Is Patent Illegality, Scope Limited To Substantive Laws: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182
Enforcement Court U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Can Refuse To Enforce Foreign Award But Cannot Set It Aside: Delhi High Court
Case Title: INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191
Agreement Between Parties Must Be Given Primacy When Deciding Petition U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192
Ban Imposed U/S 69 Of Partnership Act Has No Application To Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court
Case Title: HARI OM SHARMA v. SAUMAN KUMAR CHATTERJEE & ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1193
Challenge To Award U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Without Award Itself Being Filed Would Not Be A Valid Filing: Delhi High Court
Case Title: VASISHTA MANTENA NH04 JV & ORS. V. BLACKLEAD INFRATECH PVT LTD.
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 419/2023
Scope Of Review U/S 37 Is Limited To Ascertaining Compliance With S. 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. Paramount Communications Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1222
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee affirmed that the Court under section 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision
Case Title: HR BUILDERS THROUGH GPA HOLDER V. DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1223
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing an award from the date of the conclusion of the pleadings can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the award was passed after more than 2 years from the conclusion of the arguments.
Award Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If View Taken By Arbitrator Is A Plausible View: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RUDRA BUILDWELL PVT LTD. v. REALWORTH INDIA PVT LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1224
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that conduct of the parties has to be seen before granting equitable relief for specific performance of the contract. If the conduct of the parties does not demonstrate that the party claiming relief is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract then the relief under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted. The court in this case refused to set aside the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the Arbitrator had taken a plausible view based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
De-Jure Ineligibility To Act As Arbitrator U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act Can Be Waived Only By Express Agreement In Writing: Delhi High Court
Case Title:N.S. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1226
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that de jure ineligibility to act as an arbitrator can only be waived, after dispute having arisen, by the parties by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The court further observed that this waiver is different from section 4 of the Act which can be waived even by conduct.
Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Requires Proof Of Actual Loss: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Adani Enterprises Limited vs. Shri Somnath Fabrics Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1227
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has upheld the Arbitral Award wherein the Tribunal had ordered a refund of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) as the petitioner had failed to prove any actual loss. The court, in light of Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, observed that forfeiture of the EMD requires proof of actual loss.
Arbitral Award Without Rationale For Damages Is Ex Facie Contrary To Settled Law, Can Be Set Aside: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/s Travel2Agent.com & Ors. vs. M/s Spice Jet Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1230
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that any award of damages, on the touch stone of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, must be predicated on actual loss suffered. The court set aside the award for not disclosing the rationale for damages and, on this count, held that the award was ex facie contrary to settled law and in manifest disregard of the material/evidence on record.
Case Title: GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD versus SAW PIPES LTD
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1231
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta affirmed that the explicit terms of a contract are always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties. The multi-clause contract inter se the parties has, thus, to be understood and interpreted in a manner that any view, on a particular clause of the contract, should not do violence to another part of the contract. In this case, the court while hearing appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act upheld the impugned judgment passed by the court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Scope Of Examination U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Confined To Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SURESH KUMAR KAKKAR & ANR versus M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1234
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that when a non-signatory person or entity is arrayed as a party at Section 8 or Section 11 stage of the Arbitration Act, the referral court should prima facie determine the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement, as the case may be, and complex issue like whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement must be left for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide.
Case Title: JKR Techno Engineers Pvt Ltd v. JMD Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1237
The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that the petitioner's claim cannot be treated as dead one simply because they spent time on bona fide court proceedings before a court without jurisdiction.
Case Title: BALAJI STEEL TRADE versus FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma affirmed that Section 45 of the Arbitration Act casts a statutory mandate on Courts to refer parties to an arbitration agreement to arbitration. The only limited exception carved in Section 45 is if the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the arbitration agreement is (a) null and void; or (b) in-operative; or (c) incapable of being performed. Unless such grounds are made out, the Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration.
Pre-Requirement Of Conciliation Before Invoking Arbitration Can't Prevent Filing Of Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title:CENTAURUS GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus RAJSHREE EDUCATIONAL TRUST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that pre requirement of conciliation in an arbitration clause before invoking the arbitration cannot be a bar to file an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
Court U/S 45 Of Arbitration Act Must Refer Parties To Arbitration Unless Agreement Is Void Or Inoperative: Delhi High Court
Case Title: BALAJI STEEL TRADE versus FLUDOR BENIN S.A. AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma affirmed that Section 45 of the Arbitration Act casts a statutory mandate on Courts to refer parties to an arbitration agreement to arbitration. The only limited exception carved in Section 45 is if the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the arbitration agreement is (a) null and void; or (b) in-operative; or (c) incapable of being performed. Unless such grounds are made out, the Court has no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration.
Pre-Requirement Of Conciliation Before Invoking Arbitration Can't Prevent Filing Of Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title:CENTAURUS GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED versus RAJSHREE EDUCATIONAL TRUST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that pre requirement of conciliation in an arbitration clause before invoking the arbitration cannot be a bar to file an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
Objections On Capacity Of Party To Initiate Arbitration Must Be Addressed Before Tribunal, Not While Appointing Arbitrator: Delhi HC
Case Title: Kanwar Singh Yadav vs. Delhi Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1247
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the objections as regards the capacity of the party to initiate arbitration is an aspect which is necessarily required to be gone into the arbitration proceedings, however, the same could not preclude the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal. The court held that a party may raise appropriate jurisdictional/preliminary objections before the Arbitral Tribunal as regards the maintainability of the arbitration and/or the arbitrability of the claim.
Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence And Substitute Arbitrator's Conclusion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: In-Time Garments Pvt. Ltd. versus HSPS Textile Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1257
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad affirmed that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the Arbitrator even though a different conclusion can be arrived at on re-appreciating evidence
Plausible View Taken By Arbitrator Based On Facts Of Case Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Netaji Subhash Institute Of Technology Versus M/S Surya Engineers & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1263
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that once an arbitrator has taken a plausible view based on the facts of the case, such a view cannot be interfered with under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Merit Based Review Of Arbitral Award Is Impermissible Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Educational Society versus M/s Intec Capital Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1269
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta affirmed that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction. It is well-settled that that a merit based review of an arbitral award involving reappraisal of factual findings is impermissible. The mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract does not entitle courts to reverse the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Case Title: M/s BPL Limited v. M/s Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) NO. 46/2019
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma, while hearing a review petition of an appeal filed by the appellant u/s 37(1)(b) of the A&C Act read with Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act observed that the exuberant interest rate charged in the commercial world depends upon the transparency of the terms and conditions of the contract entered into. The bench further observed that the arbitral tribunal imposing a high interest rate cannot be said to violate the fundamental policy of Indian laws.
Court's Supervisory Role Over Arbitral Proceedings Would Be Determined As Per CPC If No Neutral Location Is Specified: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Srinivasa Construction Corporation Pvt Ltd Versus Irrigation Works Circle, Through Superintendent Engineer District, Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1273
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that if there is a neutral location specified in the contract data, that location would be the place of arbitration and the court having supervisory jurisdiction over the place would have jurisdiction. If no such location is specified, the provisions of the CPC from sections 16 to 20 would be attracted for determining the supervisory jurisdiction of the court.
Arbitration Clause From Another Contract Can Be Incorporated Into Contract Only By Specific Reference: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Unthinkable Solutions LLP Versus Ejohri Jewels Hub Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1274
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad affirmed that the arbitration clause from another contract can be incorporated into the contract when there is a clear intention that arbitration clause contained in another contract would also be incorporated in the contract by which the disputes would be resolved.
Award In Which Damages Are Awarded In Absence Of Proven Loss Or Injury Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 On Grounds Of Patent Illegality: Delhi HC
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus M/s Fiberfill Engineers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1281
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta has held that awarding damages by Arbitrator in the absence of proven injury or loss qualifies to be a patent illegality under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34.
Well Reasoned Award Cannot Be Interfered With Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aktivortho Private Limited Versus Dilbagh Singh Sachdeva And Other
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1282
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju affirmed that Courts should not customarily interfere with Arbitral Awards that are well reasoned, and contain a plausible view.Judges, by nature, may incline towards using a corrective lens, however, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, this corrective lens is inappropriate especially under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It was held that the error in interpreting a Contract is considered an error within jurisdiction of the tribunal. Therefore, judicial interference should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Procedural Orders Cannot Be Considered As Interim Award Or Challenged U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: COSLIGHT INFRA COMPANY PVT. LTD v. CONCEPT ENGINEERS & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1283
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that a procedural order given by an Arbitral Tribunal, such as rejecting an application seeking impleadment of a party, does not qualify as an interim award. So, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Liberty To File Fresh Application Not Fresh Cause Of Action, Limitation U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Extended: Delhi High Court
Case Title: NATIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY v. M S INTERMARC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1292
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee have held that mere liberty to file a fresh application before the competent Court does not amount to a fresh cause of action occurring in the appellant's favour. The relevant date(s) of the Award always remained unchanged, and therefore even after availing the benefit of the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appellant's application was barred by limitation.
Case Title: Sumana Verma vs. Arti Kapur & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1295
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has held that the striking off of the defence of the Petitioner for non-payment of arbitral fees is a drastic measure that exceeds the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The Court observed that under Section 38(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Tribunal should allow the proceedings to continue with the Claimant bearing the costs initially, subject to recovery in the final award. The court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, stayed the arbitration proceedings pending before the Sole Arbitrator under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Arbitral Award, Only To Circumvent Statutory Requirement Of S.19 Of MSMED Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Omaxe Ltd v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1297
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a writ petition challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSFEC), has held that invoking the writ jurisdiction to challenge an arbitral award would circumvent the statutory requirement of pre-deposit u/s 19 of the MSMED Act, and would amount to defeating the legislative intent.
Arbitrators Cannot Pass Binding And Enforceable Orders Unilaterally Determining Their Fees: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SPML INFRA LIMITED versus POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1302
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has affirmed that Arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their own fees. A unilateral determination of fees violates the principles of party autonomy and the doctrine of the prohibition of in rem suam decisions, ie., the arbitrators cannot be a judge of their own private claim against the parties regarding their remuneration.Special Treatment Cannot Be Given To Govt For Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Union Of India versus Besco Limited (Wagon Division)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1303
The Delhi High Court bench of Ms. Justice Rekha Palli and Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee has affirmed that just because the appellant is government that doesn't mean that a special treatment will be given while condoning the delay in filing the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Limited Scope Of Examination U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act, Award Vitiated By Patent Illegality: Delhi High Court
Case Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. SH. SATYA PAL GUPTA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1304
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded the claim for loss of profit for the period the Contract was prolonged without any evidence or material to support the claim. Therefore, the impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: SHAILESH ANILKUMAR AMIN & ANR. Versus GUJARAT METRO RAIL CORPORATION (GMRC) LTD.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 166
The Gujarat High Court Bench of Chief Justice SUNITA AGARWAL and Justice PRANAV TRIVEDI affirmed that if serious allegations of fraud are raised that the arbitration agreement was entered into by fraud and collusion and such allegations are not decided by the Arbitrator while passing an award, such an award is liable to set aside on the ground of patent illegality under section 34 of the Arbitration Act
Requirement Of Serving Notice On Other Party For Appointment Of Arbitrator Is Dispensed With In Statutory Arbitration: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/S KONNECTING INDIA & ORS. Versus THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO OP. BANK LTD. & ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 167
The Gujarat High Court Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the arbitration proceedings under consideration is not a commercial arbitration, but a statutory arbitration. The Arbitrator is appointed pursuant to the provisions of Section 84(5) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The appointment of the Arbitrator is made by the State Government on behalf of the Central Government. The argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants about the applicability of provisions of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act in a statutory arbitration, is absolutely meritless.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
S. 29A Of Arbitration Act Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Which Commenced Before 2015 Amendment: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: National Highway Authority Of India vs Rishi Singh & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 70
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that provisions of Section 29A of the Act will not be applicable to the arbitration proceedings that had started before the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force.
Objection To Tribunal's Jurisdiction U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act Must Be Raised Before Or At Time Of Statement Of Defence: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: State of H.P. and another v. M/s Gurcharan Industries
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 71
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that a party is bound by virtue of Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act to raise any objection it may have to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal before or at the time of submission of its statement of defence, and at any time thereafter it is expressly prohibited.
Award Cannot Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Mere Illegality Unless Patent Illegality Is Established U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India Versus Rajesh Kaptyaksh and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 74
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, affirmed that 'patent illegality' in the award calls for interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act but a mere illegality is not patent illegality. It ought to be apparent on the face of the award and not the one which is culled out by way of a long drawn analysis of pleadings and evidence.
Deposit Of Awarded Amount In Court Registry Sufficient To Extinguish Liability Arising Under Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Versus Kuldip Dogra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 76
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi has held that the deposit of awarded amount in pursuance of an order of the court into the court registry would be equivalent to payment under section 31 of the Arbitration Act. This will extinguish the liability arising under the award for which execution petition would then not be maintainable.
While Hearing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act, Court Must Confine Itself To Grounds U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India.Versus Vishesar (Since deceased) through LRs.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 77
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that supervisory role of Courts is very restricted in dealing with appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 of the Act is very narrow. Jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is narrower.Therefore, Courts must be very conservative while dealing with arbitral awards and confine themselves to the grounds strictly available under Section 34 of the Act.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Reiterates Limited Scope Of Court Intervention U/S 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India vs. Devi Ram & Others
Citation: 2024:HHC:11447
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Virender Singh has reiterated that the scope of interference with arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is narrow and not akin to appellate jurisdiction. Courts may only interfere if the award exhibits patent illegality or arbitrariness that goes to the root of the matter.
Deposit Of Awarded Amount In Court Registry Sufficient To Extinguish Liability Arising Under Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Versus Kuldip Dogra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 76
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi has held that the deposit of awarded amount in pursuance of an order of the court into the court registry would be equivalent to payment under section 31 of the Arbitration Act. This will extinguish the liability arising under the award for which execution petition would then not be maintainable.
While Hearing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act, Court Must Confine Itself To Grounds U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: National Highway Authority of India.Versus Vishesar (Since deceased) through LRs.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 77
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that supervisory role of Courts is very restricted in dealing with appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 of the Act is very narrow. Jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is narrower.Therefore, Courts must be very conservative while dealing with arbitral awards and confine themselves to the grounds strictly available under Section 34 of the Act.
Petition Filed After Expiry Of Limitation Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Entertained Unless Sufficient Cause Is Shown: Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Title: Engineer-in-Chief & Ors. Versus Dev Raj
Case Reference:OMP(M) No. 25 of 2024 in Arb. Case No. 851 of 2024
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot be entertained which is filed beyond the prescribed period of 3 months under section 34(3) of the Act in the absence of sufficient cause being shown.
Case Title: Ashok Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
Case Number: Arb. Case No. 18 of 2012
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya, while a Section 34 petition, has held that when an award has been found to be rendered without giving any reasoning regarding the adjudication of the disputes, the said award suffers from patent illegality apparent on the face of the award, and liable to be set aside.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title: M/s Mir Associates Construction Company Vs. Superintending Engineer Hydraulic Circle Doda and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 313
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan affirmed that when the arbitration clause is found to be foul with the amended section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, the appointment of the arbitrator would be beyond the pale of the arbitration agreement. In such eventuality, the court can be approached under section 14 of the Arbitration Act for seeking substitution of the arbitrator.
Case Title: M/s Pardeep Electricals and Building Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 314
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that once the statutory remedy under contract is exhausted, arbitration clause can be invoked and appointment of the arbitrator can be sought under section 11 of the Arbitration Act.In this case, the respondent had to constitute Dispute resolution Board (DRB) within 30 days after execution of the contract for resolving any dispute arising between the parties but no DRB was constituted
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sri R. Nataraj vs. Smt. R. Punitha & Ors.
Case Number: M.F.A. No.6586 of 2024 (AA)
The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has held that if an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, the party cannot be deemed to have waived its right to invoke the arbitration clause. The court observed that the filing of the written statement and application for reference under Section 8 simultaneously cannot lead to an inference that the Appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and had waived its right to seek reference to arbitration.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Plea Of Limitation Shall Be Deemed To Be Waived If Not Raised Before Arbitrator U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/S. UMA SHANKAR MISHRA Versus UNION OF INDIA
Case Reference: ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.24/2021
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that plea of limitation cannot be allowed to be raised first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act if no such plea was taken before the Arbitrator under section 16 of the Act. The court further observed that it shall be deemed to have been waived as per section 4 of the Act.
Award Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If Arbitrator Travels Beyond Arbitration Agreement: Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Versus RATLAM SYENTHETIC ROPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY THROUGH SMT. REKHA AND OTHERS
Case Reference: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 8 of 2018
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that if arbitrator travels beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement while passing an award, such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Award Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If Arbitrator Travels Beyond Arbitration Agreement: Madhya Pradesh HC
Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Versus RATLAM SYENTHETIC ROPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY THROUGH SMT. REKHA AND OTHERS
Case Reference: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 8 of 2018
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that if arbitrator travels beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement while passing an award, such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Madras High Court
Arbitrator Nominated U/S 18(3) MSMED Act Erred In Deciding Merits After Finding Respondent Was Not MSME: Madras HC Upholds Setting Aside Of Award
Case Title: M/S. Sivadarshini Papers Limited vs. M/S. Sunwin Papers
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 420
The Madras High Coury bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan has held that an Arbitrator ought not to decide the case on merits after coming to a conclusion that the respondent was not a Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and therefore not entitled to invoke the machinery under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The court upheld the setting aside of the award passed by the Arbitrator.
Award Must Not Be Set Aside On Ground Of Mere Erroneous Application Of Law Unless Patent Illegality Is Established U/S 34: Madras HC
Case Title: N.Jayamurugan Vs. M/s.Saravana Global Holdings Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 423
The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited and within the contours of the ground specified under Section 34 of the Act. To put it otherwise, the award is not required to be set aside on the ground of mere erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of the evidence until and unless it suffers from patent illegality.
Construction Of Contract's Terms Is Task Of Arbitrator, Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 34 Unless Construction Is Unreasonable: Madras HC
Case Title: M/s.Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Airports Authority of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 424
The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide unless the Arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do then only interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is justified.
Odisha High Court
MSME Council Award Can Be Challenged Only U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act, Not Under Articles 226 Or 227: Orissa High Court
Case Title: AES India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: W.A No.968 of 2024
The Odisha High Court bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has upheld that an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) could only be challenged in accordance with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as mandated by Section 19 of the MSMED Act. The court held that the Single Judge had rightly declined to entertain the challenge to the award under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, as such proceedings are impermissible when statutory remedies are available.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Active Promoters Private Limited vs. Desh Raj and Others
Case Number: FAO-CARB-3-2020 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justices Arun Palli and Vikram Aggarwal has reiterated that the scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is narrow, and the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is even more circumscribed. The court reiterated that jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction. It held that interference with an arbitral award is permissible only if it conflicts with public policy or is patently illegal. The court reiterated that an award should not be set aside simply based on an alternative interpretation of the agreement.
Whether Claim Is Barred By Res Judicata Cannot Be Decided By Court At S.11 Stage Of Arbitration Act: P&H High Court
Case Title: M/s Rise Projects Private Limited Versus Municipal Corporation, Faridabad
Case Reference: ARB-108-2020
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Survir Sehgal affirmed that the question whether a claim is barred by res judicata, does not arise for consideration in a proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Such an issue will have to be examined by the arbitral tribunal under section 16 of the Act.
S.12(5) Of Arbitration Act Would Be Applicable To Arbitral Proceedings Which Commenced Before 2015 Amendment Act: P&H High Court
Case Title: SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others
Case Reference: ARB-337-2017 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal has held that the provision of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act would applicable to arbitral proceedings which were initiated prior to 2015 Amendment came into force and continued thereafter.
Executing Court Can Direct Award-Debtor To Deposit Decretal Amount In Court Until Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Disposed Of: P&H High Court
Case Title: Apollo International Limited v. Man Structurals Private Limited
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal has held that executing court under section 36 of the Arbitration Act can direct the award debtor to deposit the decretal amount in the court registry till the disposal of the petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court also observed that while deciding an application under Section 36 (3) of the Arbitration Act, whereby stay has been sought by the judgment debtor, the merit of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act are not to be considered.
Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court Holds Arbitral Award To Be Patently Illegal Due To Concealment Of Material Facts, Violation Of HC Order
Case Title: State Of Rajasthan v. M/s Atlanta Ltd.
Case Number: 2024:RJ-JP:41526-DB
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar has held that it was the bounden duty of the respondent to apprise the Arbitral Tribunal about the dismissal of the writ petition. Non-disclosure of the same, tantamount to grave misconduct on part of the respondent.
Additionally, the court observed that the use of the word 'however' does not mean that the decision that Steering Group had no jurisdiction to extend the concession period becomes redundant. The Arbitral Tribunal held that the decision of the Steering Group for extension of concession is binding on the parties. The same being contrary to the judgment passed by the High Court is patently illegal.
Referral Court Has Limited Role U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act To Verify Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: PME Power Solutions (India) Ltd.Versus Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Raj 352
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal affirmed that the scope of arbitration application, in view of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is confined and limited to the extent of examining the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties for resolution of dispute.
Unless Appointment Of Arbitrator Under Arbitration Clause Is Ex-Facie Valid, Jurisdiction Of Court U/S 11(6) Cannot Be Barred: Rajasthan HC
Case Title: Surendra Sarda S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Sharda Versus Shri Maheshwari Samaj and Ors.
Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Raj 351
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal affirmed that unless the appointment of the arbitrator is ex facie valid and such appointment satisfies the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, acceptance of such appointment as a fait accompli to debar the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) cannot be countenanced in law.
Sikkim High Court
Arbitration Agreement Remains Valid Even If Underlying Contract Is Terminated: Sikkim High Court
Case Title: State of Sikkim Versus M/s Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions (P) Ltd.
Case Reference: Arb. A. No. 02 of 2016
The Sikkim High Court bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan affirmed that it is well settled that if the contract containing arbitration clause is rendered invalid or void, it does not affect the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement would continue to exist and the validity of which will be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Mrs. Bibi Hajjar Dashti vs Mr. Syed Ali Asghar Bolooki
Case Number: COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No.14 OF 2024
The Telangana High Court Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe And Justice J.Sreenivas Rao held that impartiality is an essential attribute of a Receiver. Therefore, normally one of the parties to a lis should not be appointed as Receiver without consent of the other parties unless a very special case is made out.
Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Only Checks For Existence Of Agreement, Jurisdictional Questions To Be Decided By Arbitrator: Telangana HC
Case Title: M/s K.D. SOLAR SYSTEMS v. M/s. Mytrah Energy India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.176 of 2024
The Telangana High Court Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe affirmed that Sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides that the Arbitral Tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, “including any objections” with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Section 16 is an inclusive provision, which would comprehend all preliminary issues touching upon the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. The issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would be required to be decided by the arbitrator under Section 16, and not the High Court at the pre-reference stage under Section 11 of the Act.
Telangana High Court Reiterates Limited Scope For Interference With Arbitral Awards U/S 34 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
Case Title: The Andhra Pradesh State Trading Corporation Ltd. v. M/S. Hima Bindu Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1079 of 2006
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao has held that an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the encashment of a bank guarantee does not warrant interference under section 34 of the Act. The court also held that section 34 does not permit the court to act as an appellate body or correct errors of law or fact.
Case Title: PSM Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. ZAM Engineering and Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Reference: COMMERCIAL COURT APPEAL No.20 OF 2024
The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sreenivas Rao, affirmed that where multiple agreements are interconnected and form part of a single commercial transaction then only the presence of an arbitration clause in one or more agreements can justify referring all disputes, involving all agreements and parties, to arbitration. This is true even if some agreements lack an arbitration clause. In this case, the court found that agreements were not interconnected.
MSEFC Must Decide Question On Limitation Before Adjudicating Dispute On Merits: Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/s K/12 Techno Services Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Brahma Teja Paper
Case Number: CRP 3136/2024 and CRP 3162/2024
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam. Koshy, while hearing a petition filed under Article 227, has held that the issues of maintainability, particularly the question of limitation, are to be decided by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) before proceeding to adjudicate the dispute on merits.
District Court
Section 12 Of Arbitration Act As Amended By 2015 Amendment Applicable To Proceedings Initiated Before 2015 Amendment Act: Delhi Court
Case Title: Sh. Pankaj Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Case Reference: ARBTN No.7418/17
The Delhi Commercial Court Bench of Justice MR. SATYABRATA PANDA held that Section 12 of the A&C Act as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act would be applicable to arbitral proceedings initiated prior to coming into force of the 2015 Amendment Act as well.
Not Taking Objection To Non-Compliance Of Provisions Of Arbitration Act Shall Be Deemed Waiver U/S 4 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi Court
Case Title: M/s Telecommunications Consultants India Limited v. Veekay Connectors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Reference: OMP (Comm.) No.01/2022
The Delhi Commercial Court Bench of Justice SH.RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI held that a party, who proceeds with the arbitration without stating his objection to non-compliance of any provision of the Arbitration Act, without any undue delay shall be deemed to have waived his right to object as per section 4 of Arbitration Act.
