Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: June 2024
Rajesh Kumar
4 July 2024 10:00 AM GMT
Supreme Court High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425 The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power...
Supreme Court
Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425
The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award as per Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (“Act”).
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that as per the mandate of Section 29A (4) of the Act, the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award vests within the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but there is no impediment for the High Court who is exercising the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to extend the time limit.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited
Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 120/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not preclude the consideration of applications for extension of the arbitrator's mandate filed after the expiration of the mandate.
Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (Tcil) Vs Ngbps Ltd
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 171/2019
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a general explanation of intra-departmental analysis and discussions doesn't constitute as valid and credible explanation for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Ms. Sarika Chaturvedi Vs Agarwal Auto Traders & Ors.
Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 48/2024 & I.A. 29792/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on a party for unnecessarily challenging and questioning the mandate of the arbitrator. The bench held that the party's intent was to create a stale mate. It held that repeated interventions of the court in arbitral proceedings are to be avoided and parties cannot force the arbitrators to recuse/withdraw.
Case Title: Jagdish Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indag Rubber Limited
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 165/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that a party is not permitted to challenge a procedural order passed by an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that:
“…it is observed that by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 the Petitioner is merely attempting to avoid the appellate provision under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 which clearly stipulates as to which orders are appealable.”
Case Title: M/S Kld Creation Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited
Case Number: ARB.P. 321/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the role of the court is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that once the court confirms that the arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from delving into other issues, which are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: M/S Divyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs M/S M2k Entertainment Pvt Ltd
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 162/2020 & I.A. 14331/2012, I.A. 10655/2022
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal.
Case Title: M/S Space 4 Business Solution Pvt Ltd Vs The Divisional Commissioner Principal Secretary And Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 360/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right.
The bench held that:
“whether to grant or refuse the interest on the principle amount, is the absolute discretion of the learned Arbitrator.”
Case Title: M/S Kings Chariot Vs Mr. Tarun Wadhwa
Case Number: ARB.P. 421/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that where no seat of arbitration is specified in the arbitration agreement, the jurisdiction of the court shall be determined in accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C.
The bench held that:
“….no confusion and law is explicit that for the purpose of Arbitration, even if no part of cause of action has arisen in a place, then too, the parties can agree on a seat of jurisdiction, which would then become the place for all litigation under the Arbitration Act. However, if the parties do not specify any seat/place of Arbitration, them the jurisdiction of the Court shall be determined in a accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C.”
Case Title: Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Vs M/S Dsc Limited
Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 331/2020 & I.A. 10114/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the question of determination of whether indeed, there was a delay on the part of the Contractor is not an excepted matter and it is only the quantum of damages which is non-arbitrable.
The bench held that:
“….the question of determination of delay, is not an excepted matter and has to be necessarily arbitrated and is an arbitrable dispute.”
Case Title: Vijay Maheshwari Vs Splendor Buildwell Private Limited And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 720
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 42/2024 & I.As. 2446/2024, 4723/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that under a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of inquiry is very limited to grant interim relief.
The bench held that issues of fact or law are not to be determined finally at the Section 9 stage as they fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal. It held that the interpretation of the terms of the Contract/MoU and also the determination of its scope would also be within the domain of the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: M/S Talbros Sealing Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Slach Hydratecs Equipments Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 715
Case Number: ARB.P. 1306/2022 & I.A. 6153/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the arbitration clause is not invalidated merely on the ground that the number of arbitrators, as per the arbitration clause, was an even number and therefore, was in contravention of Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 states that the parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number.
Case Title: Indian Spinal Injuries Centre Vs M/S Galaxy India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 714
Case Number: ARB.P. 848/2023, I.A. 15490/2023
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that merely sending notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not sufficient. It held that receipt of the notice is the prerequisite for the commencement of arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Pitambar Solvex Pvt Ltd And Anr. Vs Manju Sharma And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 713
Case Number: ARB.P. 212/2024, I.A. 9821/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that mere initiation of the arbitration proceedings does not bar the corporate debtor from pursuing his other remedies including those under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title: Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 711
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 93/2024 CM APPL. 29905/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that non-disclosure of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in another matter cannot be termed as a case of egregious fraud, which would disentitle a party from pursuing its petition under Section 9.
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for interim measures by the court. It empowers a party to arbitration proceedings to seek interim relief from a judicial authority before, during, or after the arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Capri Global Capital Limited Vs Ms Kiran
Case Number: ARB.P. 870/2023 and I.A. 16066/2023
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held for the purposes of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, where the appointment of an arbitrator is sought, the question of whether the claims are time-barred should ideally be left for determination by the arbitral tribunal.
Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor
Case Number: ARB.P. 882/2022
The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pertains to the extension of the time period for arbitral tribunals to make their awards. This section gives courts the power to extend the mandate of the arbitral tribunal beyond the originally specified period.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 10525 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the Zonal Micro and Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Meerut Zone, Meerut under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as the petitioners, Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited and others, had refused to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 19 of the MSME Act.
The Court held that even though principles of natural justice have been violated, it does not bar the Court from relegating the parties to alternate remedy available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Smt. Jasvinder Kaur v. National Highways Authority Of India And 2 Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 264 of 2023]
The Allahabad High Court has held that the arbitrator is obligated to deliver signed copies of arbitral award to each party to the arbitration. It has been held that irrespective of the fact that no specific request has been made by the parties for certified copy of the award, the arbitrator must deliver the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Section 31(5) of the Act unequivocally imposes an obligation upon the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy of the arbitral award to each party involved in the arbitration. This statutory duty is not contingent upon a party's request for the award; rather, it is an imperative that must be fulfilled by the Arbitrator irrespective of any such request. The failure to comply with this statutory obligation can lead to significant procedural irregularities, potentially undermining the arbitral process and the enforceability of the award,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Case Title:Manzoor Ahmad Gunna& Ors. Vs Ut Of J&K And Anr.
Case Number: CM(M) No.102/2023 CM No.2991/2023
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that interest for the prereference period as well as the pendente lite interest cannot be claimed under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
The bench held that when pre-suit interest, pendente lite interest and future interest has to be awarded on the principal sum adjudged, the interest can be awarded only on the principal sum and it does not provide for payment of interest on interest. Therefore, it held that there is no scope for the award of interest on the pendente lite interest under the Arbitration Act, of 1940.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s Halliburton India Operations Private Limited vs Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.:Commercial Appeal (L) No. 17720 of 2024
The Bombay High Court division bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil held that the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to cases where the lower court's order was arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or ignored settled legal principles on interlocutory injunctions.
Section 37 of the Arbitration Act allows appeals against specific orders related to arbitration, including refusals to refer to arbitration, measures under Section 9, and decisions on arbitral awards under Section 34.
Case Title: CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd and anr vs M/s. SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. And ors
Case Number: I.A. (L) NO.6246 OF 2024 IN COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L)NO.5565 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 310
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has held that even in a case which does not fall under the second proviso of the Section 36(3), by relying on the first proviso, the Court can consider whether to grant unconditional stay of the award or not.
Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the enforcement of arbitral awards. It outlines the procedure for enforcing an arbitral award once the time for challenging the award under Section 34 has expired.
First Proviso of Section 36:
“Provided that the Court shall, while considering the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”.
Second Proviso of Section 36:
“Provided further that where the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out that,--
(a) the arbitration agreement or contract which is the basis of the award; or
(b) the making of the award,
was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, it shall stay the award unconditionally pending disposal of the challenge under section 34 to the award.”
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Mr. Birendra Bhagat vs. Arch Infra Properties Private Limited
Case Number: CO 4354 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that a clause laying down the settlement of the dispute by an expert cannot be said to be an arbitration clause. The bench held that an arbitral tribunal arrives at its decision on the evidence and submissions of the parties and must apply the law.
It held that an expert, unless it is agreed otherwise, makes his own enquiries applies his own expertise and decides how to resolve a problem or a dispute or difference. It held such clauses do not reflect the intention of the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of an independent arbitrator.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: SEW Vizag Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd vs Board of Trustees for the Port of Visakhapatnam
Case Number: I.A.No.1 of 2023 in/and ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.17 of 2023
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of has held the High Court, not being a Court within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 29A.
Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act states that if the award is not made within the period specified of six months or the extended period of parties' mutual consent, any of the parties can apply to the court for an extension of time.
Orrisa High Court
Case Title: Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Odisha & Others vs M/s.Jagannath Choudhury
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
Case Number: ARBA No.28 of 2019
The Orrisa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash held that in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reappreciating evidence is not allowed in order to replace the arbitrator's view with another. It held that the views expressed by the arbitrator must be considered as possible interpretations based on the factual circumstances.
Section 34 deals with the application for setting aside an arbitral award. This section allows a party to challenge the arbitral award on specific grounds.
Limitation Period For Arbitration Starts From Date When Cause Of Action Accrued: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Odisha & Others vs M/s.Jagannath Choudhury
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 49
Case Number: ARBA No.28 of 2019
The Orissa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash has held that the period of limitation for commencing arbitration runs from the date when the cause of arbitration accrued. This means from the date when the claimant first acquired the right to either take action or require arbitration.
Therefore, the bench held that the limitation period for starting arbitration matches the period from when the cause of action would have accrued if there were no arbitration clause.
The bench referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court's decision in Dwijendra Narayan Roy v. Jogesh Chandra Dey and held that just as claims in court actions must be brought within a specified number of years from the date the cause of action accrued, so must arbitration claims be initiated within the same timeframe from the date the claim accrued.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s Smart Chip Private Limited vs Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 100
Case Number: A. Appl. No. 32 of 2023
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has held that the court in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not required to look beyond except existence of the arbitration clause at this stage; 'no more no less'.
Section 11 of the Arbitration Act pertains to the appointment of arbitrators. It outlines the procedure for the appointment of arbitrators in cases where parties to an arbitration agreement are unable to agree on the selection of an arbitrator or arbitrator.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s Blue City Indane vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
Case Number: S.B. Arbitration Application No. 18/2020
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that arbitration hinges on the presence of a dispute arising from the agreement between the involved parties. The bench held that any dispute unrelated to the terms of the agreement between the parties cannot be subject to the arbitration clause and therefore cannot be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause.
Case Title: Riddhi Siddhi Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Anil Industries and ors
Case Number: D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 873/2024
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni has held that while passing interim order or taking interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is required to have a prima-facie grasp of the dispute and claim of the parties.
The bench held that the court should look at the nature of the controversy and consider the relief claimed or the amount claimed. It held that if the dispute involves a monetary claim or can be quantified in financial terms, rather than issuing broad injunctions to maintain the status quo regarding the property, the court should instead safeguard the anticipated amount to be awarded to the claimant.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Versus Keventer Agro Limited
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7782 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee has held that mere filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not render the award unenforceable.
Further, the bench held merely requesting a stay on executing the decree upon furnishing a bank guarantee, without substantively arguing the merits of the award and demonstrating a prima facie case for potential success under Section 34 proceedings, is not acceptable.
Gujrat High Court Sets Aside Order Of District Judge Which Interfered With Arbitration Award
Case Title: Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Versus David Parker Construction Ltd C/O I B Patel (P A Holder) & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
Case Number: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 322 of 2010
The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee has held that arbitral awards providing reasoned interpretations of contractual terms are to be treated with substantial deference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible under Section 34.
Case Title- C2R Projects LLP v. Kinetix Solutions Private Limited & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a substitute Co-Arbitrator cannot be appointed under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) when an arbitrator's mandate is terminated by the operation of law.
Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal presiding over the case, stated, "As discussed above, this is not a case of withdrawal from the office by the Arbitrator, but rather a termination of the arbitrator's mandate by operation of law. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel's arguments for the interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, to appoint a substitute co-arbitrator by invoking Clause 11.12 of the Agreement, must be rejected."
Case Title: Pcm Cement Concrete Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union Of India and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 43
Case Number: Arb. P. 35/2023
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that Railways cannot constitute an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of serving/retired Railway Officers, as it was not in consonance with Section 12(5) and 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 12(5) deals with the grounds of ineligibility of an individual to act as an arbitrator. It states that a person shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator if he falls under any of the categories specified in the 7th Schedule.
Case Title: Durga Krishna Store Pvt Ltd Vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors
Case Number: Arb.P./14/2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana has held that the panel of arbitrators of Railways would have a certain amount of relationship with the Railways and therefore, they would be covered by the 7th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, lists the categories of persons who are ineligible to be appointed as arbitrators due to potential conflicts of interest. These categories include individuals who have a familial relationship with any of the parties, or who have any financial or other interest in the outcome of the arbitration.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Smt. Syeda Sana Sumera And Ors Vs Kamran Mirza And Ors
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATON No.207 OF 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 105
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that the scope of power of the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extremely limited. It held that the court cannot go into disputed questions of facts which are to be decided by the arbitrator.
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the appointment of arbitrators by the courts. It states the procedure for appointing arbitrators when parties fail to agree on the appointment or when certain circumstances require court intervention.
Case Title: Valmar Projects Llp vs Isthara Parks Private Limited
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos.6 AND 7 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 110
The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe has held that the mere filing of such petition under Section 9 of IBC before NCLT does not bar initiation of proceeding under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that there is no statutory provision which bars a party from initiating the proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Section 9 of the IBC deals with the application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by an operational creditor.
Case Title: Sri Sai Krishna Constructions vs Harvins Constructions Plimited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS)103
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos.221 of 2023 and 32 of 2024
The Telangana High Court bench of ChiefJustice Alok Aradhe has dismissed an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator noting that the party failed to establish prima facie evidence of the existence of valid arbitration agreement.
The bench held that the court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) must conclusively determine the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement as the same goes to the root of the matter.
Section 11(6) empowers a party to apply to the Chief Justice or a designated authority if there is a failure in the agreed procedure for appointing arbitrators.
Court Must Assign Reasons When Releasing Amount Under Section 19 of MSME Act: Telangana High Court
Case Title: National Small Industries Corporation vs Brahma Teja Paper Products
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS)104
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1543 of 2024
The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti has held that the court while dealing with a prayer under Section 19 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 to release the amount has to assign reasons for releasing such percentage of the amount.
Section 19 of the MSME Act provides that the court may permit the release of a portion of the deposited amount to the supplier pending the decision on the application to set aside the decree, award, or order, contingent upon the circumstances and conditions it deems fit to impose.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Yeshwant Boolani (Dead) through Lrs. Tarun Dhameja vs Sunil Dhameja and Anr.
Case No.: Arbitration Case No. 19 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 142
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that parties could not be compelled to opt for arbitration when the agreement clearly left it to the discretion of the parties. A discretionary arbitration clause would require the mutual consent of all parties for the dispute to be referred to arbitration.
Case Title: M/S Liladhar Laxminarayan Agrawal Vs Managing Director M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Vikas Nigam
Case Number: MISC. APPEAL No. 3747 of 2005
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat has held that there is no bar created by Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 that the court cannot entertain an application in respect of award until it has been filed.
Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, of 1940, specifies the court jurisdiction for arbitration matters. It states that an award may be filed in any court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. It also states that all questions regarding the validity, effect, or existence of an award or arbitration agreement must be decided by the court where the award has been or may be filed, and not by any other court.
Gauhati High Court
No Bar On Invoking Arbitration Despite Alternative Remedy Under RERA Act: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Pallab Ghosh And Anr Vs Simplex Infrastructures Limited And Anr
Case Number: Arb.P./21/2023
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that arbitration can be invoked to settle a real estate dispute, despite the existence of an alternative legal remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA Act).
The High Court held that there was there is no inherent conflict or repugnancy between the RERA Act and the Arbitration Act. It held that while the RERA Act provides a specific mechanism for resolving real estate disputes, the presence of an arbitration agreement between the parties allows for the invocation of arbitration.
Case Title: M/S. Jcl Infra Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Union Of India And Anr
Case Number: Arb.P./22/2023
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that it is the duty of courts to examine and reject time-barred claims to prevent parties from being trapped in protracted and costly arbitration processes.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. M/s Rites Ltd. and Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 91
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL) challenging the writ court's order to appoint a sole arbitrator in its dispute with M/s Rites.
The Court emphasized that it is the High Court's duty to reject petitions or defenses based on purely technical grounds aimed at gaining an unfair advantage.
The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar, noted, “…except for a broad proposition that the High Court should not exercise its powers in teeth of the provisions under the AC Act, we are not shown any decision that in a situation like the present one no order for referring the parties to arbitration could have been made by the writ Court. The submission that the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution to accept the proposal of an aggrieved party for arbitration notwithstanding refusal by the other party shall open floodgates cannot be countenance in law."
Kerala High Court
Arbitration Clause Valid But Unilateral Appointment Part Is Invalid: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Travancore Rural Development Producer Company Ltd. Vs Divya Lakshmi Sanal And Ors
Case Number: AR NO. 74 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice G. Girish has held that arbitration clauses with provisions for the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator cannot be entirely rejected due to this defect. It held that the clauses are to be considered valid arbitration clauses except for those portions which confer the authority upon one party to unilaterally appoint arbitrators.
Arbitration Bar of India
The Arbitration Bar of India (ABI) and the Indian Arbitration Forum (IAF) have expressed apprehensions about the recommendations outlined in recent office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance, titled "Guidelines for Arbitration and Mediation in Contracts for Domestic Public Procurement.”
The memorandum, issued by the Department of Expenditure, advises against the routine inclusion of arbitration clauses in government procurement contracts for large-scale contracts. It suggests that arbitration should only be employed for disputes with a value less than ₹10 crores. For all other cases, it proposes that arbitration should not be considered a method of dispute resolution.
In a detailed representation to the Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, the ABI and IAF highlighted their concerns. They referred statements from the Prime Minister and other senior government officials advocating for the promotion of arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism. They stated in their representation that the memorandum contradicts the government's previous efforts to create a robust arbitration ecosystem in India.
