Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [25th November To 1st December, 2024]
Mohd Talha Hasan
2 Dec 2024 1:55 PM IST
![Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [25th November To 1st December, 2024]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/05/24/750x450_541379-weekly-round-up-arbitration.webp "Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [25th November To 1st December, 2024]")
Supreme Court
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
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
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
Delhi High Court
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).
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.
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.
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.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
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.
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.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
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.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: PSM Energy Pvt. Ltd. Versus 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.
