Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 26th May 2024 To 2nd June 2024
Rajesh Kumar
7 Jun 2024 1:17 PM GMT
Delhi High Court [Arbitration Act] Awarding Interest Rate Is Discretion Of Arbitrator, Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court 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...
Delhi High Court
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 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 Twenty-Four Secure Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Competent Automobiles Company Limited
Case Number: ARB.P. 24/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a contention that the court lacked the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator, even though the arbitration agreement specified a three-member tribunal.
The bench held that because the parties have not been able to arrive at the name of an arbitrator, the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not premature and was maintainable under the law.
Case Title: M/S Blooming Orchid Vs Fp Life Education Foundation
Case Number: ARB. P. 630/2024 & I.A. 10843/202
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held the period during which the parties were bona fide negotiating towards an amicable settlement may be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for reference to Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that in such cases, the entire negotiation history between the parties must be specifically pleaded and placed on record.
Case Title: Abhimanyu Through Special Power Of Attorney Holder Vs Parmesh Construction Co. Ltd
Case Number: ARB.P. 322/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that where the arbitration seat is fixed, only such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the cause of action arose at Noida, the agreement was executed at Noida, and the suit property is also situated at Noida. Therefore, the courts in Noida have jurisdiction over the appointment of an arbitrator.
Case Title: M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd Vs M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.M.P. (MISC.) 6/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Extramarks Education India Pvt. Ltd Vs Saraswati Shishu Mandir
Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 13/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that that the termination of an arbitrator's mandate does not equate to the termination of the arbitral proceedings. Instead, it allows for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator to ensure the continuation of the proceedings.
Case Title: Purvanchal Hathkargha Sahakari Sangh Ltd Vs All India Handloom Fabrics Society And Anr.
Case Number: ARB.P. 75/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that except power conferred to the Central Registrar under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 for appointment of an Arbitrator, the other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall remain in operation. It held that the notice as required under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be a pre-requisite even for initiation of proceedings under Section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India V. Rampyari And Another
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 394 OF 2022
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that an arbitral award should only be set aside if it is clearly vitiated by "patent illegality" evident on the face of the record. The bench held that an award cannot be annulled merely due to an incorrect application of the law or misinterpretation of evidence.
Case Title: Ghaziabad Development Authority v. M/S S.P.G. Infra Projects (Pvt) Limited [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 33 of 2022]
The Allahabad High Court has refused to condone a delay of 966 days in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was due to misplacement of case files by the lawyer while shifting his office during Dussehra.
“Misplacement of files due to office shifting, especially during a holiday period, is not an uncommon occurrence. However, the burden lies on the appellant to ensure that necessary precautions and timely measures are in place to prevent such eventualities from affecting crucial legal processes. The appellant's advocate, being a legal professional, is expected to maintain a higher standard of care in managing case files, especially those that are time- sensitive,” held Justice Shekhar B. Saraf.
Case Title: Chitra Misra And 13 Others v. M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director And Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2475 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Sole Arbitrator on grounds that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioners, private persons who claimed to be owners of part premises in question, and M/s Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd.
Case Title: Bharatiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran V. Neeraj Sharma And Others [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT NO. 8 of 2020] The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of signed copy of award being delivered to parties under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not to be construed narrowly. The Court held that once the party seeking extension of limitation by applying Section 31(5) of the Act is aware of the contents of the alleged unsigned award, the limitation cannot be extended.
Section 31(5) of Act of 1996 provides that after passing of an arbitral award, its signed copy must be delivered to each party.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Hari Singh vs National Highways Authority of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 27
The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that landowner cannot be left high and dry for no fault of his. It held that the mere fact that his petition under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act was not decided by the Statutory Authority within the prescribed/extended period should not foreclose his right to seek enhancement in compensation.
The bench held that Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator in deserving cases.
Sikkim High Court
Case Title: Union of India vs M/s M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Arb. A. No. 1 of 2022
The Sikkim High Court bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan held that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 gives no power to the court to modify an award while hearing a challenge to an arbitral award. The bench held that the court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award, and any attempt to do so, even if the award conflicts with the grounds specified under Section 34, would be wholly unsustainable in law.
