Arbitration Weekly Roundup: June 10 - June 16, 2024
Rajesh Kumar
17 Jun 2024 10:43 PM IST
Supreme Court High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425 The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power...
Supreme Court
Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425
The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award as per Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (“Act”).
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that as per the mandate of Section 29A (4) of the Act, the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award vests within the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but there is no impediment for the High Court who is exercising the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to extend the time limit.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Vijay Maheshwari Vs Splendor Buildwell Private Limited And Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 720
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 42/2024 & I.As. 2446/2024, 4723/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that under a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of inquiry is very limited to grant interim relief.
The bench held that issues of fact or law are not to be determined finally at the Section 9 stage as they fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal. It held that the interpretation of the terms of the Contract/MoU and also the determination of its scope would also be within the domain of the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: M/S Talbros Sealing Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Slach Hydratecs Equipments Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 715
Case Number: ARB.P. 1306/2022 & I.A. 6153/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the arbitration clause is not invalidated merely on the ground that the number of arbitrators, as per the arbitration clause, was an even number and therefore, was in contravention of Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 states that the parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number.
Case Title: Indian Spinal Injuries Centre Vs M/S Galaxy India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 714
Case Number: ARB.P. 848/2023, I.A. 15490/2023
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that merely sending notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not sufficient. It held that receipt of the notice is the prerequisite for the commencement of arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Pitambar Solvex Pvt Ltd And Anr. Vs Manju Sharma And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 713
Case Number: ARB.P. 212/2024, I.A. 9821/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that mere initiation of the arbitration proceedings does not bar the corporate debtor from pursuing his other remedies including those under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code.
Case Title: Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 711
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 93/2024 CM APPL. 29905/2024
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that non-disclosure of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in another matter cannot be termed as a case of egregious fraud, which would disentitle a party from pursuing its petition under Section 9.
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for interim measures by the court. It empowers a party to arbitration proceedings to seek interim relief from a judicial authority before, during, or after the arbitration proceedings.
Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: M/s Blue City Indane vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
Case Number: S.B. Arbitration Application No. 18/2020
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that arbitration hinges on the presence of a dispute arising from the agreement between the involved parties. The bench held that any dispute unrelated to the terms of the agreement between the parties cannot be subject to the arbitration clause and therefore cannot be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause.
Case Title: Riddhi Siddhi Infraproject Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Anil Industries and ors
Case Number: D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 873/2024
The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni has held that while passing interim order or taking interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is required to have a prima-facie grasp of the dispute and claim of the parties.
The bench held that the court should look at the nature of the controversy and consider the relief claimed or the amount claimed. It held that if the dispute involves a monetary claim or can be quantified in financial terms, rather than issuing broad injunctions to maintain the status quo regarding the property, the court should instead safeguard the anticipated amount to be awarded to the claimant.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Mr. Birendra Bhagat vs. Arch Infra Properties Private Limited
Case Number: CO 4354 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that a clause laying down the settlement of the dispute by an expert cannot be said to be an arbitration clause. The bench held that an arbitral tribunal arrives at its decision on the evidence and submissions of the parties and must apply the law.
It held that an expert, unless it is agreed otherwise, makes his own enquiries applies his own expertise and decides how to resolve a problem or a dispute or difference. It held such clauses do not reflect the intention of the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of an independent arbitrator.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: SEW Vizag Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd vs Board of Trustees for the Port of Visakhapatnam
Case Number: I.A.No.1 of 2023 in/and ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.17 of 2023
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of has held the High Court, not being a Court within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 29A.
Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act states that if the award is not made within the period specified of six months or the extended period of parties' mutual consent, any of the parties can apply to the court for an extension of time.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/S Liladhar Laxminarayan Agrawal Vs Managing Director M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Vikas Nigam
Case Number: MISC. APPEAL No. 3747 of 2005
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat has held that there is no bar created by Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 that the court cannot entertain an application in respect of award until it has been filed.
Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, of 1940, specifies the court jurisdiction for arbitration matters. It states that an award may be filed in any court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. It also states that all questions regarding the validity, effect, or existence of an award or arbitration agreement must be decided by the court where the award has been or may be filed, and not by any other court.
Gauhati High Court
No Bar On Invoking Arbitration Despite Alternative Remedy Under RERA Act: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Pallab Ghosh And Anr Vs Simplex Infrastructures Limited And Anr
Case Number: Arb.P./21/2023
The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that arbitration can be invoked to settle a real estate dispute, despite the existence of an alternative legal remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA Act).
The High Court held that there was there is no inherent conflict or repugnancy between the RERA Act and the Arbitration Act. It held that while the RERA Act provides a specific mechanism for resolving real estate disputes, the presence of an arbitration agreement between the parties allows for the invocation of arbitration.
Kerala High Court
Arbitration Clause Valid But Unilateral Appointment Part Is Invalid: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Travancore Rural Development Producer Company Ltd. Vs Divya Lakshmi Sanal And Ors
Case Number: AR NO. 74 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice G. Girish has held that arbitration clauses with provisions for the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator cannot be entirely rejected due to this defect. It held that the clauses are to be considered valid arbitration clauses except for those portions which confer the authority upon one party to unilaterally appoint arbitrators.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Versus Keventer Agro Limited
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7782 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee has held that mere filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not render the award unenforceable.
Further, the bench held merely requesting a stay on executing the decree upon furnishing a bank guarantee, without substantively arguing the merits of the award and demonstrating a prima facie case for potential success under Section 34 proceedings, is not acceptable.
Gujrat High Court Sets Aside Order Of District Judge Which Interfered With Arbitration Award
Case Title: Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Versus David Parker Construction Ltd C/O I B Patel (P A Holder) & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
Case Number: R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 322 of 2010
The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee has held that arbitral awards providing reasoned interpretations of contractual terms are to be treated with substantial deference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible under Section 34.
Case Title- C2R Projects LLP v. Kinetix Solutions Private Limited & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a substitute Co-Arbitrator cannot be appointed under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) when an arbitrator's mandate is terminated by the operation of law.
Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal presiding over the case, stated, "As discussed above, this is not a case of withdrawal from the office by the Arbitrator, but rather a termination of the arbitrator's mandate by operation of law. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel's arguments for the interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, to appoint a substitute co-arbitrator by invoking Clause 11.12 of the Agreement, must be rejected."
