Arbitration Weekly Round-up: 1st April to 7th April 2024
ausaf ayyub
11 April 2024 1:00 PM IST
High Courts Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court Directs Inquiry Against Officers Who Failed To File Arbitration Appeals Within Prescribed Limitation Case Title: Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2024] The Allahabad High Court has...
High Courts
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has directed Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against officers who were responsible for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which were filed after a delay of 513 days.
While dismissing the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that “the proceedings have been conducted in reckless manner which is other than bona fide.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kirloskar Pneumatic Company v. Kataria Sales Corporation, Commercial Arbitration Petition, No. 16 of 2023
The High Court of Bombay has held that there is no requirement of Section 21 notice for re-commencing the arbitration after the first award is set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in such a situation there would be no requirement of a fresh invocation notice as the opposite party would already be aware of the existence of the dispute.
Case Title: Riak Insurance and Financial Services & Ors. vs HDFC Bank Limited
Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 30 of 2021
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the ineligibility of the arbitrator could only be waived if both parties agree by an express agreement in writing as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Parties' consent cannot be implied otherwise.
Case Title: Cardinal Energy and Infra Structure Private Ltd. vs Subramanya Construction and Development Co. Ltd.
Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.2603 OF 2024
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R I Chagla held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the Arbitration Agreement and to implead the non-signatory.
The Court held that the absence of a specific prayer for the impleadment of a non-signatory in a Section 11 Application does not preclude the application of the 'group of companies' doctrine by the arbitral tribunal.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: United Machinery & Appliances v. Greaves Cotton Limited, CS. 2 of 2015
The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application filed under Section 8 of the A&C Act by observing that the allegations of fraud and forgery would be serious in nature when the cognizance of the same is take by the magistrate.
The bench of Justice Krishna Rao relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasiva, (2016) 10 SCC 386 and Rashid Raza vs. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710 to hold that dispute would not be referred to arbitration when the allegations of fraud and forgery are serious in nature and goes to the existence of the agreement containing arbitration clause.
Case Title: M/s Fullerton India Credit Company Limited vs Ms Manju Khati
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that a certified copy of the original agreement 'attested by a Notary Public' is sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. Once filed, the courts must refer the parties to arbitration.
Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act provides, “The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.”
Delhi High Court
The Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of Delhi High Court has held that merely because a criminal case of forgery/fabrication has been registered in relation to an agreement, any civil/commercial dispute arising out of such agreement would not become non-arbitrable.
The Court reiterated that pendency of criminal case is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of an arbitration petition. It held that to shut out the arbitration at the initial stage itself would destroy the very purpose for which the parties had entered into arbitration and that there is no inherent risk of prejudice in permitting the criminal proceedings to simultaneously proceed with the arbitration.
Case Title: Startupwala Pvt. Ltd v. Google India Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 400
The High Court of Delhi has directed Google India to maintain status quo in respect of advertisement displayed on its platforms by observing that the main revenue for a party in an advertisement agreement comes from the ad revenue and en masse blocking of ads would result in irreparable loss to that party.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh also reiterated that a Section 9 petition would be maintainable in an arbitration with seat of arbitration outside India.
Case Title: BBNL v. Sterlite Technologies Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 401
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has referred the question 'Whether non-filing of statement of truth with a Challenge Petition would make the filing non-est' to a larger bench in view of conflicting views taken by two Division Benches.
Case Title: Hfcl Limited Vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh appointed Justice Mukta Gupta (Retd.) as an arbitrator for a dispute where a Petitioner invoked arbitration by referring to the work orders signed by the parties. The High Court observed the identical nature of the arbitration clauses in the tender and the work orders and held that there was no ambiguity even if the tender prevailed over the work orders in case of any conflict or ambiguity.
Case Title: Sharad Gupta & Ors Vs Shri Vinayak Infraland Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 398
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is no provision for splitting of parties and referring part of the subject matter to arbitration. It held that where a suit encompasses matters outside the arbitration agreement and involves parties not party to the said agreement, Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply.
Case Title: Union Of India vs M/s Gitwako Farms Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay and termed it unreasonable that it took the Appellant nearly two months to collate documents that should have been readily available, considering they would have been submitted with the initial application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that while the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability lies with the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court may intervene in manifestly non-arbitrable claims to prevent resource wastage.
“To appoint an Arbitrator, even though there is no doubt in the view of this Court that the present dispute is not arbitrable, would lead to wastage of resources, besides being a sheer waste of time.”
Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s Bagalkot Cement & Industries Ltd vs The Chairperson, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
The Madras High Court single bench of Justice R. N. Manjula held that the imposition of three times of the bank rate of interest on the award amount by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Facilitation Council is violation of fundamental principles of reasonableness and fairness. It held that the Petitioner is indirectly deprived of his appeal remedy in view of such high rate of interest.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: M/s SAARC Communication Private Ltd. vs The Doaba Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. and Others
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal dismissed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and noted that the Petitioner failed to send a clear notice as per Section 21 of the Act. The bench held that a notice under Section 21 has to be unequivocal to leave no manner of doubt in the mind of the noticee that the claimant intends to invoke the arbitration clause.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/s T.K. Engineering Consortium vs M/s Potin Pangin Highway Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 70 of 2023
The Telangana High Court single bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe held that the precondition for invoking the arbitration clause is considered fulfilled when parties explore the possibility of settling the dispute amicably through arbitration. Correspondence and exchanges between the parties can be perused to assess whether there was an agreement over an amicable settlement.
