Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 12 February To 18 February, 2023

No Jurisdictional Error By Arbitrator In Allowing Consolidated SoC Containing Specific Claims Under Different Contracts: Bombay High Court

Case Title: BST Textile Mills Pvt Ltd versus The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the arbitrator cannot be said to have committed a jurisdictional error by allowing a consolidated Statement of Claims (SoC), without the consent of the opposite party/ award debtor, in view of the fact that specific claims pertaining to each of the nine contracts were placed distinctly in the Statement of Claims and the award debtor also chose to file a consolidated counter claim pertaining to all the nine contracts.

Arbitrator Who Accepted Brief Of Party’s Lawyer In An Unrelated Matter, No Clash of Interest Involved: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Quess Corp versus Netcore Cloud Pvt Ltd

The Bombay High Court has ruled that there is no clash of interest involved where the Arbitrator had acted as a counsel and represented the Advocate representing the opposite party, in another unrelated matter for some other client.

The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre concluded that the disqualification connection, contemplated under Item 3 of Schedule VII of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), must be between the Arbitrator and the litigant. Thus, where the Arbitrator had accepted a brief from the respondent’s counsel for some other client, the same will not amount to per se disqualification or ineligibility, the Court ruled.

Calcutta High Court:

Admitting Jurisdiction In The Pleading Enough For ‘Express Agreement’ Under Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: McLeod Russel India Limited versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited

The High Court of Calcutta has held that filing of pleadings before the arbitral tribunal and agreeing to the jurisdiction of the tribunal therein satisfies the requirement of ‘express agreement’ given under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Act.

The bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that if a party, which was aware of the position of law qua the invalidity of the unilateral appointment of arbitrator, participates in the arbitral proceedings for a considerable period of time and obtains the benefit of the order of the tribunal, it cannot later turn around and challenge the appointment of the arbitrator.

All Unilateral Appointments Are Not Invalid Unless The Appointed Arbitrator Falls Within 7th Schedule: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: McLeod Russel India Limited versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited

The High Court of Calcutta has held that all unilateral appointments of arbitrator are not invalid per se unless the arbitrator’s relationship falls within the Seventh Schedule to the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya distinguished between an arbitration clause that permits unilateral appointment of arbitrator and a clause that provides for arbitration before some person in charge of one of the parties or right of that person to delegate his function to a third party. The Court held that only in the latter scenario the persona designata would not just himself be ineligible to act as an arbitrator but would also be precluded from appointing someone else on its behalf.

Delhi High Court:

Clarification Sought By Arbitrator On Other Matters, Won’t Make Them Subject Of Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case Title: University of Delhi versus M/s Kalra Electricals

The Delhi High Court has ruled that information and clarification sought by the Arbitral Tribunal on matters and dispute arising under other contracts, which do not form a part of the arbitral reference, will not alone make them the subject of arbitral proceedings.

The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked that the letter issued by the Arbitrator, seeking information and clarification as to whether payments were released to the claimant under other contracts, which were not inter-related with the contract under consideration, was neither a direction nor an order made by the Arbitrator, and it was merely an effort to seek clarification on certain matters.

DAMEPL v. DMRC: High Court Asks Centre, Delhi Govt To Make Submissions On Payment Of Unpaid Arbitral Award To Reliance Infra

Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the Union of India and Delhi Government in the ongoing case concerning payment of unpaid dues of arbitral award to Reliance Infrastructure-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Ltd (DAMEPL) by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).

Justice Yashwant Varma impleaded Union of India through Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and Delhi Government through its Chief Secretary in DAMEPL’s petition seeking enforcement of the arbitration award dated May 11, 2017.