High Courts

Allahabad High Court

Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Post Expiry Of Tenancy Agreement: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Anoop Maheshwari v. Thomas T. Kurian [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 157 of 2024]

While entertaining a revision petition related to a tenancy agreement, the Allahabad High Court has held that a clause for arbitration cannot be invoked for any disputes that arise after the contract has come to an end.

“… it clearly transpires that existence of a contract is necessary for invocation of arbitration clause prescribed under the agreement as the clause would perish with the contract,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.

Bombay High Court

After Execution Of Sale Deed, Arbitration Clause Mentioned In Agreement For Sale Becomes Ineffective: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP v. Sharp Properties

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 618

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla has held that the Agreement for sale has come to an end by the execution of the Deed of Conveyance / Sale Deed. It is well settled that once a Conveyance is executed, the object, purpose, effectiveness and validity of the Agreement for sale comes to an end. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the Agreement comes to an end as the Agreement stands fully discharged and does not have any legal effect upon the execution of the Conveyance.

SARFAESI And Arbitration Proceedings Can Proceed Parallely As Nature Of Both Proceedings Is Distinct: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Paul Packaging Private Limited (COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO. 25050 OF 2023)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 619

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Advait M Sethna has affirmed that SARFAESI proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings, while arbitration is in the context of an adjudicatory proceedings. The SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration proceedings thus can proceed parallely.

The court further observed that the role of referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act is very limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement.

"Maintainability" And "Jurisdiction" Cannot Be Conflated While Deciding Application U/S 20 Of Arbitration Act, 1940: Bombay HC

Case Title: Deepak Manaklal Katariay V/s. Ahsok Motilal Katariya and Ors.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.2315 OF 2015

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Amit Borkar has held that maintainability and jurisdiction cannot be used interchangeably as they connote different things. Lack of jurisdiction results in the nullity of proceedings, as the court inherently lacks authority to adjudicate. Non-compliance with maintainability bars leads to dismissal without deciding the merits of the case but does not affect the court's inherent power.

Chhatisgarh High Court

Two Arbitration Petitions For Same Relief Cannot Be Filed: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Himalaya Complex Vyapari Kalyan Sangh Supela Bhilai Society Through Its Joint Secretary versus Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited Through Its Chariman

Case Number: ARBR No. 11 of 2024

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Chief Justice Mr. Ramesh Sinha has held that two arbitration petitions for the same relief cannot be filed.

Delhi High Court

Court Which Appointed Arbitrator Has Jurisdiction To Substitute Arbitrator Or Extend Time U/S 29 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: OVINGTON FINANCE PVT. LTD. versus BINDIYA NAGAR

Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 695/2024

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the term "Court" under Section 29A must mean only to be the Court which has appointed the arbitrator and therefore the Court to extend the time or substitute the arbitrator would only be the Court which has appointed the arbitrator and no other Court.

Additionally, the court held that Section 9 of the act deals with interim measures passed by a Court and therefore the term "Court" would have to take the meaning of the Court under Section 2(1)(e).

Delhi HC Allows Invocation Of Arbitration Clause After 10 Yrs, Says That Scope Of S.11(6) Plea Is Limited To Ascertaining Existence Of Agreement

Case Title: SHRI KR ANAND v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Case Number: ARB.P. 1776/2024

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the scope of the present proceedings is confined to ascertaining the existence of the arbitration agreement. Also, the objections raised by the respondent regarding the limitation/jurisdiction would be required to be considered by a duly constituted arbitral tribunal.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Claim Of Rs.15 Lakh Awarded By Arbitral Tribunal Due To Lack Of Evidence

Case Title: MOHD AMIN DECEASED THROUGH LRS versus MOHD IQBAL DECEASED THROUGH LRS

Case Number: FAO (OS)(COMM) 81/2024

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that after persuading the Supreme Court to refer the disputes to arbitration, it is not open for the appellant to now question the validity of the reference.

Additionally, the court held that the respondent had not placed any evidence on record to establish the cost of such construction. Therefore, the amount awarded against Claim no.2 was without any evidence and thus may be set aside.

Delhi High Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Gas Supply Dispute, Invalidates Previous Arbitration Clause In View Of CORE Judgment

Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED vs. M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS

Case Number: ARB.P. 355/2024

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that the arbitration agreement which contemplated the appointment of the sole Arbitrator to be made out of a panel of three persons chosen by the petitioner was no longer valid in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company.

Consequently, the court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties upon determination of the existence of the arbitration agreement.

S.2(1)(f) Is Non-Derogable, Applicability Cannot Be Excluded Even By Mutual Consent Of Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Suresh Shah versus Tata Consultancy Services Limited

Case Number: O.M.P. 5/2017, I.A. 9676/2019

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration Act which defined the International Commercial Arbitration is a non derogable provision and its applicability cannot be excluded even by mutual consent of the parties.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Court Not Having Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/S 34 Cannot Go Into Merits Of Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Versus Himachal Pradesh Farmers' Forum

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 82

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that once the court comes to the conclusion that it didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it cannot go into the merits of the case.

This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act arose out of an order passed by the District Judge by which objections preferred under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the award were rejected.

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Interest On Awarded Amount Cannot Exceed Rate Of 6% As Provided U/S 30(7) Of J&K Arbitration Act: High Court

Case Title: Union of India Vs M/S Sharma Construction Co. Akhnoor District Jammu

Case Number: AA No. 09/2014

The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court bench of Justice M A Chowdhary has held that section 30(7) of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 1997 which was amended in 2010 is retrospective in nature. The interest on the awarded amount cannot exceed the rate of 6% per annum as provided in the section.

Madras High Court

Ineligibility Of Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged First Time Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: VR Dakshin Private Limited Verus SCM Silks Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 473

The Madras High Court bench of of Chief justice Mr. K.R.Shriram and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy has held that the ineligibility of the Arbitrator cannot be challenged for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act when there were enough opportunities to challenge the same in the earlier proceedings.

Patna High Court

Findings Of Calcutta HC Cannot Be Challenged Before Courts At Patna After Objections Over Jurisdiction Were Dismissed: Patna High Court

Case Title: The State of Bihar versus M/s Tantia Construction Ltd.

Case Number: C. Misc. No.43 of 2022

The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar has held that the findings of the Calcutta High Court cannot be challenged in the Courts at Patna. Additionally, the court noted that the respondent had first approached the Calcutta High Court by preferring an application under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act would be attracted, and subsequent applications would not be maintainable before the Courts at Patna.

Rajasthan High Court

Interpretation Of Contractual Stipulations Must Be Done To Give Full Effect To Arbitration Agreement: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: M/s Argon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd.

Case Number: ARBAP-64/2023

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that it is a well-established principle of law if there is any contractual stipulation between the parties which under-mines the scope of the arbitration clause. Then, the same will be given an interpretation in the manner which gives full effect to the arbitration agreement between the parties.