1. Atul Pratap Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 3 Others, 2024:AHC:167917-DB

2. State Of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others v. M/S Virat Construction, 2024:AHC:171241-DB

3. NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD., 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182

4. The State of H.P. & Anr. V. M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd, OMP(M) No. 74 of 2023

5. INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD, 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191

6. M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE, 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192

7. State Of Rajasthan v. M/s Atlanta Ltd., 2024:RJ-JP:41526-DB

8. HARI OM SHARMA v. SAUMAN KUMAR CHATTERJEE & ANR, 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1193

9. Sh. Pankaj Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., ARBTN No.7418/17

10. M/s Telecommunications Consultants India Limited v. Veekay Connectors Pvt. Ltd., OMP (Comm.) No.01/2022

High Court

While Filing Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act, Applicant Is Not Required To Dispute Contents Of Plaint: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Atul Pratap Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 3 Others

Case Number: 2024:AHC:167917-DB

The Allahabad High Court Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has held that there is no requirement for the applicant to dispute the contents of the plaint, while filling in an application under Section 8. The very fact that an application has been filed necessarily means that the applicant wants to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Additionally, the court held that the scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the Court under Section 8 and 11 of the Act is identical, but extremely limited and restricted with little interference from court.

Arbitration Act | New Evidence Cannot Be Adduced At S.37 Stage, Bar Of Limitation U/S 34(3) Is Attracted: Allahabad HC

Case Title: State Of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others v. M/S Virat Construction

Case Reference: 2024:AHC:171241-DB

The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, held that the amendment obtained or raising fresh grounds virtually amounts to file a fresh appeal and would be barred by limitation as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Hence, it is not open for the appellant to raise any new ground or adduce any fresh evidence in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

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

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that patent illegality applies only to violations of substantive law of India, the Arbitration Act, or the rules applicable to the substance of the dispute. It does not apply to every legal mistake made by the arbitral tribunal.

Additionally, the court held that the scope of a challenge under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated therein.

Applicability Of Section 5 Of Limitation Act To Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Excluded: Himachal Pradesh HC

Case Title: The State of H.P. & Anr. V. M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd

Case Reference: OMP(M) No. 74 of 2023

The Himachal Pradesh High Court Bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that the prescribed period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act is three months and further that given the language used in proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of the Act, applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act to the petition under Section 34 of the Act has been excluded.

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

The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that the power to set aside a foreign award lies only with the courts at the seat of the arbitration, which exercise primary/supervisory jurisdiction over the matter. Even if grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act can be made out, the Court being the enforcement court and having only secondary jurisdiction over the foreign award cannot set aside the award but may only “refuse” its enforcement.

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

The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the role of the court under section 9 of the Arbitration Act is to preserve the subject matter of the Arbitration till the arbitral tribunal decides the claims on merits. Whether termination of the agreement was valid or not is not be decided by the court at section 9 stage. Primacy to agreement between the parties has to be given while deciding petition under 9 of Arbitration Act.

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.

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

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the bar of Section 69 of the Partnership Act does not come within the expression “other proceedings” as used in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act. Therefore, the ban imposed under Section 69 has no application to the arbitral proceedings.

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.

Article

Understanding Arbitration And Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015: Whether Retrospective Or Prospective In Nature

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 marks a watershed moment in the history of Arbitration in India. The idea of the Amendment germinated in a Law Commission Report submitted in 2014 which recommended an overhaul of the current framework of the Arbitration.^[1] The Amendment aimed to reduce judicial interference and ensure the timely resolution of the Arbitration matters by amending sections 9, 11, 17, 34 and 36 of the Act. However, the amendment brought in uncertainty regarding its applicability to the Arbitral Proceedings commenced before the Amendment Act came into force. Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment resolved this confusion to some extent.