Arbitration Weekly Round Up [9th December To 15th December 2024]

Supreme Court

S. 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court

Case : Kirpal Singh Vs Government Of India

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 970

The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for the exclusion of the time spent in pursuing bona fide proceedings in a wrong forum from the computation of the period of limitation.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Limitation Act liberally as there is only a limited window to challenge an arbitral award.

Disputes Falling Exclusively Within Jurisdiction Of Statutory Authorities Aren't Arbitrable : Supreme Court Reiterates

Case Title: Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 981

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that disputes falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable.

While holding so, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the dispute related to wages and termination of an employee were non-arbitrable and would be exclusively dealt with by the statutory authorities established under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (“PW Act”) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).

High Courts

Bombay High Court

High Court Under Article 226/227 Can Examine Validity Of Interlocutory Orders Passed By Arbitrator: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology Versus M/s. Kay Vee Enterprises (WRIT PETITION NO. 9868 / 2024)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 635

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Shailesh P. Brahme and S.G. Mehare has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not excluded from examining the validity of the interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitrator.

Calcutta High Court

Order Passed U/S 11 Cannot Be Recalled If Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists To Justify Reference Of Parties To Arbitration: Calcutta HC

Case Title: BANKAT GARODIA VS ADITYO PODDAR

Case Number: IA NO.GA-COM/2/2024 In AP-COM/17/2023

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an order passed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act on the basis of an arbitration clause cannot be recalled merely on the ground that reply given to a notice under section 21 was suppressed.

Chhatisgarh High Court

Court At Designated Seat Would Have Exclusive Jurisdiction To Entertain Applications Arising Out Of Arbitration: Chhattisgarh HC

Case Title: M/s. Radhakishan Ventures Private Limited versus M/s Caratlane Trading Private Limited and Ors.

Case Number: Arbitration Appeal No.30 of 2024

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justices Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Radhakishan Agrawal has held that court having supervisory jurisdiction over seat designated in the Arbitration Agreement would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain all applications arising out of the arbitration proceedings.

Delhi High Court

Error In Order Passed By Court In Arbitration Proceeding Can Be Corrected Under Sections 152, 153 Of CPC: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ADO INDIA PVT. LTD. versus ATS HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED

Case Number: I.A. 1612/2024 in ARB. P. 1432/2022

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has held that any error in an order passed by the court in the Arbitration Proceedings can be corrected under sections 152 and 153 of the CPC provided prejudice is not caused to the other party.

Gujarat High Court

Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Agreement Does Not Automatically Bar Jurisdiction Of Civil Court: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: DEVSHIBHAI GOVINDBHAI LIMBANI & ORS. Versus DHAVALBHAI BHOGILAL VYAS & ORS.

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 188

The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi has held that mere existence of arbitration clause in the agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the civil court automatically.

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Petition U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Entertained After Lapse Of 3 Yrs From Date Of Cause Of Action Arising: J&K High Court

Case Title: M/s Mir Sons Constructions Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 332

The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that the petition under section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot be entertained after lapse of 3 years from the date of cause of action having arisen.

Appointment Of Managing Director/Chairman Of Party As Arbitrator Is Prohibited U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: J&K High Court

Case Title: Avtar Krishan Suri V/s The Estate Manager, J&K Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 336

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that managing director or chairman of a party to the arbitration agreement cannot be appointed as Arbitrator in light of section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act.

Karnataka High Court

'Reasoned Order' Passed By Arbitrator/District Court Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 37 Of A&C Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mr. N. Rajgopal Hebbar vs. Mrs. Padmavathi & Ors.

Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5460/2016 (AA) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5461/2016 (AA) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5462/2016 (AA) IN M.F.A.NO.5462/2016

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has reiterated that when a reasoned order has been passed by the Arbitrator, the same cannot be interfered with. In the case, the court found that the District Court had properly considered sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, as well as relevant provisions of the Sale of Goods Act in modifying the arbitral award. The court, therefore, refused to interfere with the award under section 37(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Award To Modify Or Declare It Void: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: AKME FINTRADE (INDIA) LTD. Versus SEEMA JAIN AND OTHERS

Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 131 of 2024

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi has held that executing court cannot go behind the award or decree to modify or declare it void.

Interest Cannot Be Awarded By Arbitrator When Awarding Of Interest Is Prohibited In Contract: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: M.P. AUDYUOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM LTD AND OTHERS Versus MR. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Case Number: ARBITRATION REVISION No. 10 of 2019

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vinay Saraf has held that the tribunal has no discretion to award payment of interest when there is clear prohibition in the contract that the interest cannot be given.

Orissa High Court

Dispute Related To Infringement Of Copyright Is Arbitrable, Arbitrator Can Be Appointed U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

Case Title: Shri Binaya Kumar Naik VersusSanjay Kumar Naik and another

Case Number:ARBP No. 9 of 2024

The Orissa High Court bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh has held that dispute related to infringement of copyright is arbitrable for which arbitrator can be appointed by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act.

Patna High Court

Once Person Empowered To Nominate Arbitrator Becomes Ineligible U/S 12(5), Matter Shall Not Be Referred To Arbitration: Patna High Court

Case Title: M/s R.S Construction Versus Infrastructure Development Authority and Ors.

Case Number: REQUEST CASE No.83, 85, 87 and 92 of 2024

The Patna High Court bench of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran has held that once the person empowered to nominate an arbitrator under an arbitration clause becomes ineligible to nominate the arbitrator, the matter shall not referred to the Arbitration.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Specific Exclusion Clause In Agreement Renders Dispute Non-Arbitrable: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Title:M/s Ganpati Rice & General Mills Versus Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited and another

Case Number: ARB-227-2019 (O&M)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has held that when there is a specific exclusion clause in the agreement, the matter shall not be referred to Arbitration.

Rajasthan High Court

Referral Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Enter Into Merits Of Subject Matter Of Disputes: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: M/s R.K. Constructions Versus Ganesh Narayan Jaiswal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 396

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot enter into merits of subject matter of the disputes. It has to see only the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

Whether Arbitration Agreement Has All Essential Elements Can Better Be Decided By Tribunal U/S 16 Of A&C Act: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: M/s Terrace Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Versus Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Limited through its Managing Director

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 397

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that the issue of validity of arbitration agreement more particularly in respect of having essential elements of the arbitration agreement, can better be considered and decided on merits by the arbitration tribunal under section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

Uttarakhand High Court

On Recusal Of Arbitrator Appointed By Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act, Substitute Arbitrator Can Be Appointed U/S 15(2): Uttarakhand HC

Case Title: Shri Rajendra Mimani Versus Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited

Case Number:Arbitration Application No. 7 of 2024

The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari has held that on recusal of previously appointed Arbitrator appointed by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act , a substitute Arbitrator can be appointed by the court under section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act.