Arbitration Weekly Roundup: June 24 - June 30, 2024
Rajesh Kumar
2 July 2024 11:45 AM IST
Delhi High Court Objections Regarding Time-Barred Claims Under Section 11 Petition Should Be Left For Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court Case Title: Capri Global Capital Limited Vs Ms Kiran Case Number: ARB.P. 870/2023 and I.A. 16066/2023 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held for the purposes of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration...
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Capri Global Capital Limited Vs Ms Kiran
Case Number: ARB.P. 870/2023 and I.A. 16066/2023
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held for the purposes of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, where the appointment of an arbitrator is sought, the question of whether the claims are time-barred should ideally be left for determination by the arbitral tribunal.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s Halliburton India Operations Private Limited vs Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.:Commercial Appeal (L) No. 17720 of 2024
The Bombay High Court division bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil held that the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to cases where the lower court's order was arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or ignored settled legal principles on interlocutory injunctions.
Section 37 of the Arbitration Act allows appeals against specific orders related to arbitration, including refusals to refer to arbitration, measures under Section 9, and decisions on arbitral awards under Section 34.
Orrisa High Court
Case Title: Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Odisha & Others vs M/s.Jagannath Choudhury
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
Case Number: ARBA No.28 of 2019
The Orrisa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash held that in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reappreciating evidence is not allowed in order to replace the arbitrator's view with another. It held that the views expressed by the arbitrator must be considered as possible interpretations based on the factual circumstances.
Section 34 deals with the application for setting aside an arbitral award. This section allows a party to challenge the arbitral award on specific grounds.
Limitation Period For Arbitration Starts From Date When Cause Of Action Accrued: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Odisha & Others vs M/s.Jagannath Choudhury
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 49
Case Number: ARBA No.28 of 2019
The Orissa High Court bench of Justice D. Dash has held that the period of limitation for commencing arbitration runs from the date when the cause of arbitration accrued. This means from the date when the claimant first acquired the right to either take action or require arbitration.
Therefore, the bench held that the limitation period for starting arbitration matches the period from when the cause of action would have accrued if there were no arbitration clause.
The bench referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court's decision in Dwijendra Narayan Roy v. Jogesh Chandra Dey and held that just as claims in court actions must be brought within a specified number of years from the date the cause of action accrued, so must arbitration claims be initiated within the same timeframe from the date the claim accrued.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s Smart Chip Private Limited vs Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 100
Case Number: A. Appl. No. 32 of 2023
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has held that the court in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not required to look beyond except existence of the arbitration clause at this stage; 'no more no less'.
Section 11 of the Arbitration Act pertains to the appointment of arbitrators. It outlines the procedure for the appointment of arbitrators in cases where parties to an arbitration agreement are unable to agree on the selection of an arbitrator or arbitrator.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Smt. Syeda Sana Sumera And Ors Vs Kamran Mirza And Ors
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATON No.207 OF 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 105
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that the scope of power of the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extremely limited. It held that the court cannot go into disputed questions of facts which are to be decided by the arbitrator.
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the appointment of arbitrators by the courts. It states the procedure for appointing arbitrators when parties fail to agree on the appointment or when certain circumstances require court intervention.
Case Title: Valmar Projects Llp vs Isthara Parks Private Limited
Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos.6 AND 7 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 110
The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe has held that the mere filing of such petition under Section 9 of IBC before NCLT does not bar initiation of proceeding under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that there is no statutory provision which bars a party from initiating the proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
Section 9 of the IBC deals with the application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process by an operational creditor.
Arbitration Bar of India
The Arbitration Bar of India (ABI) and the Indian Arbitration Forum (IAF) have expressed apprehensions about the recommendations outlined in recent office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance, titled "Guidelines for Arbitration and Mediation in Contracts for Domestic Public Procurement.”
The memorandum, issued by the Department of Expenditure, advises against the routine inclusion of arbitration clauses in government procurement contracts for large-scale contracts. It suggests that arbitration should only be employed for disputes with a value less than ₹10 crores. For all other cases, it proposes that arbitration should not be considered a method of dispute resolution.
In a detailed representation to the Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, the ABI and IAF highlighted their concerns. They referred statements from the Prime Minister and other senior government officials advocating for the promotion of arbitration as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism. They stated in their representation that the memorandum contradicts the government's previous efforts to create a robust arbitration ecosystem in India.
