Delhi High Court partially sets aside Arbitral Award passed by Sole Arbitrator for failing to appreciate contractual terms subsisting between parties
In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 20-09-2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, a Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J. set aside the finding made by the Sole Arbitrator regarding the pre-litigation interest in the impugned award, since the Arbitrator had failed to appreciate the contractual terms that were present between the parties. Read more
‘One business partner’s conduct detrimental to another’; Bombay HC grants interim relief u/s 9 to aggrieved partner, in absence of efficacious remedy u/s 17 of Arbitration Act, 1996
In rival petitions before a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., filed by partners, i.e., petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 of respondent 3, a construction company (“Firm”), owing to certain differences, where the petitioner contended that the respondents 1 and 2 were dealing with the business of the Firm to his detriment. The contending parties had referred their case to arbitration as per the Partnership Deed between them, for which a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Court. The instant Court had issued a status quo order, effective till the final decision of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court noted that the petitioner had blatantly violated the status quo order by commencing construction at a Firm’s property. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s petition. However, the respondent’s petition for the appointment of a Court Receiver to safeguard the Firm property was allowed. Read more
Order granting/declining ex-parte interim measure in Commercial Arbitration Dispute is appealable under S. 37, A&C Act, 1996: Karnataka HC
While considering the instant appeal, wherein the Court had to consider that whether an order refusing or granting ex-parte interim measure on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) falling under ‘Commercial Arbitration Dispute’ is appealable order under Section 37 of the A&C Act; or whether such an appeal is barred under the proviso to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman and Anant Ramanath Hegde*, JJ., opined that an order granting or declining ex-parte interim measure is appealable under Section 37 of A&C Act, even if a dispute under Section 9 of A&C Act is before the Commercial Court. Read more
‘Necessary ingredients of Sec. 11(6) clearly exist’; Delhi HC appoints Arbitrator to resolve dispute between Yuvraj Singh and real estate developer for claim of Rs. 1.38 Crores
In a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) filed by cricketer Yuvraj Singh seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes with respondents, C. Hari Shankar, J., referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator and observed that invocation of arbitration would not stand effaced just because a party had sought refund. Read more
Delhi High Court | Arbitral Tribunal cannot award certain types of damages if they are specifically excluded by contractual clauses
An intra court appeal was filed by Plus91 Security Solutions (appellant) under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging a judgment dated 18-12-2023 passed by a Single Judge in a case filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act contesting an arbitral award dated 17-03-2023 wherein the Arbitral Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹8,43,07,904 in favour of the present appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the awarded amount with effect from 23-08-2019 till the date of payment along with a sum of ₹1,27,30,625 as costs in favour of the appellant. A Division Bench of Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ., dismissed the appeal and held that the award of damages on account of loss of profits is contrary to the terms of the contract (MOU) and thus, the impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality. Read more
‘Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts’: Delhi HC
C. HARI SHANKAR, J., dismissed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) filed against the Arbitrator’s Award, wherein, the petitioner was directed to execute a sale deed of the disputed property in favour of the present respondent on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioners should have been raised before the Arbitral Tribunal and that reappreciation of facts of a dispute was not permitted under Section 34 of the Act. Read more
No bar to invoke arbitration even if alternative remedy available under RERA Act: Gauhati High Court
The present was an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Clause executed between the parties, and an Arbitral Tribunal made up of three Arbitrators were to be constituted. Michael Zothankhuma, J., held that arbitration could be invoked by a party, in spite of the availability of the alternative remedy provided under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘RERA Act’). Read more
‘One business partner’s conduct detrimental to another’; Bombay HC grants interim relief u/s 9 to aggrieved partner, in absence of efficacious remedy u/s 17 of Arbitration Act, 1996
In rival petitions before a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., filed by partners, i.e., petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 of respondent 3, a construction company (“Firm”), owing to certain differences, where the petitioner contended that the respondents 1 and 2 were dealing with the business of the Firm to his detriment. The contending parties had referred their case to arbitration as per the Partnership Deed between them, for which a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Court. The instant Court had issued a status quo order, effective till the final decision of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court noted that the petitioner had blatantly violated the status quo order by commencing construction at a Firm’s property. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s petition. However, the respondent’s petition for the appointment of a Court Receiver to safeguard the Firm property was allowed. Read more
Order granting/declining ex-parte interim measure in Commercial Arbitration Dispute is appealable under S. 37, A&C Act, 1996: Karnataka HC
While considering the instant appeal, wherein the Court had to consider that whether an order refusing or granting ex-parte interim measure on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) falling under ‘Commercial Arbitration Dispute’ is appealable order under Section 37 of the A&C Act; or whether such an appeal is barred under the proviso to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman and Anant Ramanath Hegde*, JJ., opined that an order granting or declining ex-parte interim measure is appealable under Section 37 of A&C Act, even if a dispute under Section 9 of A&C Act is before the Commercial Court. Read more
‘INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard’; Delhi High Court holds petition under S. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable
In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) to challenge an award dated 04-04-2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed by Respondent 2, a Single Judge Bench of Pratibha M. Singh, J. held that the petitioner had no locus to file a petition under Section 34, and the same was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party to the arbitral proceedings. Read more
Delhi High Court dismisses Reliance’s petition against UIDAI; upholds impugned arbitral award in its entirety
In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) by Reliance Communications Limited (‘Reliance’) to impugn an award passed by a Sole Arbitrator dated 23-02-2017, a Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. found that there was no merit in the two grounds that were advanced to challenge the impugned award and upheld the same. Read more
Delhi High Court refers matter to Arbitrator based on arbitration clause in invoices issued for payment
In a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties in terms of an arbitration clause contained on invoices issued by the petitioner to the respondent, a Single Judge Bench of Prateek Jalan, J. allowed the petition and referred the disputes between the parties to arbitration while stating that despite being given opportunities, the respondent had not filed an affidavit to deny the case pleaded by the petitioner. Read more
Also Read: One Step Back, Then Three Steps Back: The Unfavourable Pitch of Indian Arbitration
Can allegations of coercion be looked into u/s 11 of the Arbitration Act by the referral Court? Delhi HC explains
In a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration, where petitioner alleged coercion by respondent, C. Hari Shankar, J., appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes, while holding that an allegation of coercion was a pure question of fact which necessarily had to be examined by the arbitral tribunal. Read more
‘S. 21 notice not required if claim is filed in form of counterclaim for which reference has been made by Court’; Delhi HC dismisses Arbitration Applications
In a batch of two appeals filed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) and a petition under Section 14 of the Act arising out of orders dated 23-05-2023 and 17-10-2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Court vide order dated 22-07-2022, a Single Judge Bench of Pratibha M. Singh, J. held that there was no legal incapacity in the Sole Arbitrator to deal with the claims and counterclaims and his mandate did not deserve to be terminated. Read more
Calcutta High Court refuses to consider order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for binding Trial Judge to stay anti-arbitration suit
In a revisional application directed against an order dated 17-01-2024, passed by the Commercial Judge at Rajarhat, North 24, Parganas in an anti-arbitration suit, a Single Judge Bench of Shampa Sarkar, J. dismissed the application and held that the suit was not required to be stayed since the plaint case and the reliefs claimed did not indicate that there was any monetary claim or any other claim that would be covered by Chapter 11 cases in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Read more
