Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 8th April To 14th April 2024
ausaf ayyub
16 April 2024 9:00 AM IST
Allahabad High Court Whether Claims Prior To Work Order Are Covered By The Arbitration Clause Or Not Is To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd, Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023 The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to...
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd, Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023
The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court at pre-arbitration stage under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar also reiterated that after the judgment in Perkins an interested party cannot act as or appoint a sole arbitrator.
Case Title: North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd.
The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction. It held that even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration agreement between the parties specifying a different jurisdiction based on their territorial situs.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v. Hindusthan Copper Limited. IA. No. GA. 5 of 2021 in EOS. 11 of 2003
The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application by Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL) under Sections 48/49 of the A&C Act seeking to refuse enforcement of the foreign award in favour of the Centrotrade Minerals.
The bench of Justice Sugato Majmudar held that once the enforceability of an award is affirmed by the Supreme Court, it cannot be opposed on a new ground which could have been taken in earlier proceedings in relation to the enforceability. It held that such an application would be barred by constructive res-judicata.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: North East Centre of Technology Application & Reach v. Divine Bamboo Mat Manufacturing, OMP (T) 1 of 2024
The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 14 of the A&C Act seeking substitution of the arbitrator is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues.
The Court also held that an arbitrator would be deemed to have abandoned the arbitration if no proceedings take place for a substantial period of time.
Case Title: NHAI v. M/s IRB Ahmedabad Vadodra Super Express Tollways, OMP(COMM) 455 of 2022
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that a decision of the arbitral tribunal to refuse to implead a party to the arbitral proceedings does not constitute an 'Interim Award' which can be directly challenged under Section 34 of the Act pending arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: STCI Finance Ltd v. Sukhmani Technologies Pvt Ltd, OMP (COMM) 340 of 2017
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere registration of shares in favor of the pledgee as the "beneficial owner" does not amount to a sale of shares, and the pledgee is not required to account for any sale proceeds until the shares are actually sold to a third party.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the pledgee's right of redemption of shares remains alive until such actual sale takes place. It set aside an arbitration award wherein the arbitrator held that once the pledgee becomes the beneficial owner of the pledged shares, it becomes entitled to the credit of the value of the pledged shares.
Case Title: G4S Secure Solutions v. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd, ARB.P. 427 of 2024
The High Court of Delhi has held that the balance days of limitation which were available to a party on 15.03.2020 would become available with effect from 01.03.2022, which is the day on which the benefit of the Suo Moto Extension by the Supreme Court expired.
The bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act would not be time barred when it is filed within the balance period of limitation calculated from 01.03.2022.
Use Of The Word 'Seat' Is Not Compulsory In An Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Anju Jain v. M/s WTC Noida Development Company Pvt Ltd, ARB.P. 1329 of 2023
The High Court of Delhi has held that the use of word 'seat' in an arbitration clause is not compulsory to determine the jurisdiction of the Court(s) which would have jurisdiction over the proceedings arising out of the arbitration agreement.
The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that there would be no seat and venue dichotomy when the jurisdiction conferred on other courts is made subject to the arbitration agreement. It held that in absence of any contrary Indicia, the referred place would be the seat of arbitration.
Case Title: T.V. Today Network Ltd Vs Home And Soul Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that court at the Section 11(6) stage should refrain from delving into hyper-technical aspects or intricacies of the arbitration agreement. Instead, the bench held that if an agreement visibly contains an arbitration clause and involves a dispute suitable for arbitration, it must be referred to the arbitrator as a matter of course.
Case Title: MyPreferred Transformation & Hospitality v. Faridabad Implements Pvt Ltd, FAO(OS) (COMM) 67 of 2023
The High Court of Delhi has held that a Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot be entertained by the Court even if the 30 days condonable grace period given under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act expired during the Court breaks and the petition was filed on the date on which the Court reopened.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that Section 10 of General Clauses Act, which provides that an act is considered to be done within limitation, if it is done on the next day on which the court reopens if the last day of limitation coincided with court holiday, does not apply to a petition challenging arbitration award.
Final Determination On Question Of Arbitrability Should Be Made By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Prince Chadha v. Amardeep Singh, ARB.P. 1361 of 2022
The High Court of Delhi has held that final determination on the issue of arbitrability of the dispute and the subject matter should be made by the arbitrator. It held that the scope of Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the agreement.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the Court can interfere only when the dispute is ex-facie not arbitrable. It held that an agreement prima facie exists when it contains the signature of the parties and attestation by a Notary Public.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Fulkunwar v. Saksham Pradikari, Writ Petition NO. 6939 of 2024
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that a writ petition filed to challenge an arbitral award is not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh held that a writ petition should be dismissed in limine when there is a statutory appeal available. It held that statutory remedies available under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act cannot be bypassed by the parties.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Gaurav Rice Industries v. The Haryana State Coop. Supply and Marketing Fed. Limited, FAO-CARB No. 58 of 2023
The Division Bench of Justices Arun Palli and Vikram Aggarwal of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that an arbitration award cannot be considered patently illegal due to arbitrator's acceptance of a claim in toto if the respondent did not file any written statement of defence nor led any evidence to contest the claimed amount.
