Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11 To 17 September 2023

Arbitration Act | Tribunal’s Mandate Terminates U/S 29A Unless Extended During Subsistence: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Rohan Builders (India) Pvt Ltd vs Berger Paints India Ltd

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the mandate of an arbitral tribunal is held to be terminated under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, (“1996 Act”), unless the same is extended during its subsistence, in the absence of which, an arbitrator would become de jure inadmissible.

Security Offered By An Award-Debtor For Stay Of Arbitral Award Must Be ‘Clean, Unblemished With Good Exchange Value’: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Sarat Chatterjee and Co. (VSP) Pvt Ltd vs Sri Munisubrata Agri International Ltd and Anr.

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the security furnished by an award-debtor for stay of an arbitral award must be “clean, unblemished and with good exchange value.”

Delhi High Court:

Claims Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration When The Requirement To Mandatorily Notify Such Claims Was Not Followed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s BCC-Monalisha (JV) vs Container Corporation of India

The High Court of Delhi has held that claims of a party cannot be referred to arbitration when the requirement to mandatorily notify such claims with the General Manger (GM) was not followed.

If Contract Mandates Arbitration Only When Claims Collectively Are 20% Or Less Of Contract Value, Court Won’t Compel Arbitration If It Exceeds: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s BCC-Monalisha (JV) vs Container Corporation of India

The High Court of Delhi has held that in cases where the contract stipulates arbitration solely in instances where the cumulative value of claims is below 20% of the contract value, the court would abstain from directing the parties towards arbitration if the claims surpass this specified cumulative value threshold.

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court:

J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act | Filing Application U/S 5 Not Bar To Referral For Arbitration U/S 8(1): High Court

Case Title: Brij Mohan Sawney vs Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that filing of the application under Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 cannot be construed as a submission of statement of the substance of the dispute within the meaning of Section 8(1) of the Act to create a legal bar in referring the matter to an arbitrator.

Kerala High Court:

Contract Implied When Parties Bind Themselves To Specified Terms & Conditions Despite Absence Of Formal Agreement: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/S Anantham Online Pvt. Ltd. vs Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that even if a formal agreement has not been entered into between the parties, where they have bound themselves to certain specified terms and conditions, it cannot be contended that there is no concluded contract between the parties. The court thus accepted the arbitration request and appointed an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute between M/S Anantham Online Pvt. Ltd., and the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, regarding the execution of a work contract between the parties for operating the Vehicle Parking Facility at Thiruvananthapuram Central (Main Entry) Railway.

Rajasthan High Court:

Place Of Arbitration Does Not Become The Seat Of Arbitration When The Exclusive Jurisdiction Is Conferred On Courts Of Another Place: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Aseem Watts vs Union of India

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the place of arbitration does not become the seat of arbitration when the exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on Courts of another place. The bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati held that where a place is designated merely as a ‘venue’ and courts of another place have been granted the exclusive jurisdiction, the latter is a clear ‘contrary indicia’ that prevents the place from becoming the seat of arbitration.

Sikkim High Court:

Third Party Having Interest In The Immovable Property Can Challenge The Award Before The Executing Court If The Award Was Obtained Fraudulently: Sikkim High Court

Case Title: Kiran Devi Chouraria vs Jhumar Mal Singhi & Ors.

The High Court of Sikkim has held that a third party/objector can file a petition under O.XXI R.97 R/W Section 47 of CPC before the Executing Court if it can be shown that the arbitral award in respect of the immovable property is a nullity or obtained by fraud.

Other Developments:

The India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC) Releases Conduct Of Arbitration Regulations, 2023

The India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC) has officially unveiled the India International Arbitration Centre (Conduct of Arbitration) Regulations, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations"), shedding light on the intricate procedures governing arbitral processes. These Regulations, which became effective on September 1, meticulously outline the procedure for initiating arbitration under the purview of IIAC, the selection of arbitrators, and the mechanisms for resolving disputes.