Arbitration Act, 1940 doesn’t empower Arbitrator or Court to award interest upon interest or compound interest: Supreme Court
While considering the instant petition concerning a contract of 1984-85 between the petitioner and the respondent, where an Award came to be passed by the Arbitrator on 17-09-1997 under the Arbitration Act, 1940; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal*, JJ., pointed out the legal position that Arbitration Act, 1940 does not specifically empowers either the Arbitrator or the Court to award interest upon interest or compound interest. Furthermore, there is no other provision which provides for grant of compound interest or interest upon interest. The Court further stated that Section 34 of CPC is silent in this regard whereas Section 3(3) of Interest Act, 1978 specifically prohibits the same. [D. Khosla & Co. v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 476, 07-08-2024].Read more…
Pre-reference & pendente lite interest
Arbitrator can award pre-reference & pendente lite interest even when agreement is silent on award of interest or does not specifically prohibit it: SC
In civil appeals against Calcutta High Court’s decision, whereby the appellants appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) against Trial Court’s decision was partly allowed and claims regarding loss of business; uneconomic utilization of plant and machinery; labour charges for uneconomical stoppage of work; interest on delayed payment of running account bills and escalation bill; escalation; interest on the sum awarded; and costs, were partly sustained by upholding Arbitrator’s Awards in some claims and setting aside in others, the Division Bench of PS Narasimha* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. upheld the High Court’s decision in setting aside the Award with respect to claim no. 3 as to loss caused due to idle labour, machinery, etc. The Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court in so far as it rejected and set aside claim no. 4 for interest on delayed payment of running account bills. [Pam Developments (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B., (2024) 10 SCC 715, 23-08-2024]. Read more…
Section 34 Arbitration Act
Judge hearing application under S. 34 Arbitration Act must apply mind to grounds of challenge and deduce whether interference is required: SC
In a special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the division bench of the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court remand the proceedings to the Single Judge for reconsidering the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, observing that the validity of the award of refund and the grant of interest appears in the context of examining the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Single Judge alone, the Three Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. while agreeing with the reasoning which led the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to remand the proceedings to the Single Judge, said that interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 must be confined to the grounds which are permissible under the statute. But equally, the Judge hearing an application under Section 34 must apply their mind to the grounds of challenge and then deduce as to whether a case for interference within the parameters of Section 34 has been made out. [Kalanithi Maran v. Ajay Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1876, 26-07-2024]. Read more…
Extension of time for passing award
Application for extension of time for passing arbitral award under Section 29A of Arbitration Act is maintainable even after 18-month deadline for making of award: SC
In a civil appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court held that the application for extension of time under Sections 29-A(4) and 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act, 1996’) can only be entertained if filed before the expiry of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna* and R. Mahadevan, JJ. held that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period. The court, while adjudicating such extension applications will be guided by the principle of sufficient cause. [Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494, 12-09-2024]. Read more…
Non-Signatories bound Arbitration Agreements
Supreme Court explains how Non-Signatories may be bound by Arbitration Agreements.
Discussing the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction and the role to be played by the referral court in the appointment of an arbitrator especially with reference to the participation of the non-signatory in the performance of the underlying contract, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI and JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ held that the conduct of the non-signatory party along with the other attending circumstances may lead the referral court to draw a legitimate inference that it is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement. “The mutual intent of the parties, relationship of a non-signatory with a signatory, commonality of the subject matter, composite nature of the transactions and performance of the contract are all factors that signify the intention of the non-signatory to be bound by the arbitration agreement.”. [Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S. Patel, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2597, 20-09-2024]. Read more…
Section 37 vis-a-vis Section 34
Arbitration and Conciliation Act | Appellate power of Section 37 is limited within the domain of Section 34: Supreme Court
While considering the instant appeal challenging the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby which it had set aside an Arbitral Award granted in favour of the appellant; the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal*, JJ., held that the scope of the intervention of the Court in arbitral matters is virtually prohibited, if not absolutely barred and that the interference is confined only to the extent envisaged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The appellate power of Section 37 of the A&C Act is limited within the domain of Section 34 of the A&C Act. [Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. v. Sanman Rice Mills, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2632, 27-09-2024]. Read more…
Enquiry limitations of the Referral Court
Under Section 11(6) A&C Act, Referral Court must limit its enquiry to the question of limitation period only:SC
While considering the instant arbitration petition seeking appointment of arbitrator for adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of the Shareholders Agreement dated 25-07-2011 entered into between the petitioner and the respondents; the 3-Judge Bench of DY Chandrachud, CJ., JB Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ., reiterated that while determining the issue of limitation in the exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the referral court must only conduct a limited enquiry for the purpose of examining whether the Section 11(6) application has been filed within the limitation period of three years or not. At this stage, it would not be proper for the referral court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner are time barred. Such a determination must be left to the decision of the arbitrator. [Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh v. ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3191, decided on 7-11-2024]. Read more…
Express designation of Seat in agreement
Express designation of place in an arbitration agreement is an appropriate criterion to determine Seat of Arbitration: SC
While deciding the instant petition filed under Section 11(6)(a) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking a referral of the disputes that have arisen between the parties to arbitration and consequent appointment of an arbitrator by the Court; the 3-Judge Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJ., JB Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ., held that more appropriate criterion for determining the seat of arbitration is that where in an arbitration agreement there is an express designation of a place of arbitration anchoring the arbitral proceedings to such place, and there being no other significant contrary indicia to show otherwise, such place would be the ‘seat’ of arbitration even if it is designated in the nomenclature of ‘venue’ in the arbitration agreement. [Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3212, 07-11-2024]. Read more…
Rejection of arbitrator’s appointment
Application for arbitrator’s appointment cannot be rejected on multiplicity alone if cause of action for subsequent arbitration arises: SC
In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, wherein, the Commercial Arbitration Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act, 1996’) at the instance of the Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad (‘present respondent’) was allowed and sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes and differences between HPCL Biofuels Ltd. (‘the appellant’) and the respondent, the Division Bench of CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud and JB Pardiwala*, JJ. allowing the appeal set aside the impugned decision. The Court held that, in the absence of any liberty being granted at the time of withdrawal of the first application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996, the fresh application filed by the respondent under the same provision was not maintainable and the fresh application was time-barred, hence, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. The Court also ruled that the respondent was also not entitled to the benefit of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3190, 07-11-2024]. Read more…
Intention to incorporate Arbitration Clause
Reference to a document in contract should show intention to incorporate arbitration clause: Supreme Court reiterates
In appeals challenging Delhi High Court’s orders allowing application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) appointing sole arbitrator, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. reiterated that reference to a specific document in the contract should clearly show the intention of the parties to contract for incorporating arbitration clause in the contract. [NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects (P) Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 174, 19-03-2024] Read more…
Examination of arbitration agreement
‘Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute’, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator
In an arbitration petition, the division bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI and Manoj Misra*, J. said that since at the stage of consideration of a prayer under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act, 1996’) , the Court has to confine itself to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, it would not be appropriate for it to delve deep into the issue as it could well be considered by the arbitrator on the basis of evidence led by the parties. More so, when existence of arbitration agreement in the license agreement and share subscription agreement is not in dispute. Therefore, the Court referred the matter to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. [Lifeforce Cryobank Sciences v. Cryoviva Biotech (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3215, 08-11-2024]. Read more…
Industrial Tribunal’s jurisdiction
Disputes relating to non-payment of wages & termination order within Industrial Tribunal’s jurisdiction; SC quashes arbitrator’s appointment
In a civil appeal by an employee challenging the decision of the Madras High Court appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’), the Division Bench of PS Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. held that Section 11(6) under the Act had two facets, the first relating to disputes that were anyway pending before the statutory authorities, and they related to non-payment of wages and legality and propriety of termination which are non-arbitrable; the second being the allegations of violation of clause 19 relating to non-disclosure obligation, which was not raised in the show cause notice, inquiry report, chargesheet and termination order, hence they were termed as- non-existent. The Court allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and the order passed by the High Court and dismissed the petition under Section 11(6) filed by the employer under the Act. [Dushyant Janbandhu v. Hyundai Autoever India (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3691, decided on: 11-12-2024]. Read more…
Limitation Period for Appointing Arbitrators
‘3 years is a long period for filing application for appointing arbitrator’; SC suggests Parliament to bring amendment prescribing specific limitation period.
Supreme Court: In an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act, 1996’) filed at the instance of a company based in Kabul, Afghanistan and engaged in the business of providing training to desirous students in computer education, English language, information technology, etc. praying for the appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims arising from the Contract dated 21-03-2013 entered between the petitioner and the respondent, the three Judge Bench Dr. DY. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ. has held that the present arbitration petition having been filed within a period of three years from the date when the respondent failed to comply with the notice of invocation of arbitration issued by the petitioner is not hit by limitation. Further, the notice for invocation of arbitration having been issued by the petitioner within a period of three years from the date of accrual of cause of action, the claims cannot be said to be ex-facie dead or time-barred on the date of commencement of the arbitration proceedings. [Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 215, decided on 01-03-2024]. Read more…
Letter of Intent
Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers.
In a civil appeal filed by NBCC (India) Limited challenging the orders passed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the Court allowed the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (‘the Arbitration Act’) and appointed the Sole Arbitrator, the division bench of BR Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders, said that when there is a reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, the arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to the second contract unless there is a specific mention/reference thereto. [NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects (P) Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 174, 19-03-2024]. Read more…
Appointment of Arbitrator
Calcutta High Court dismisses application for appointment of Arbitrator; rules “May” in Clause 13 renders dispute resolution ambiguous
In a matter before the Court for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), a single-judge bench comprising of Moushumi Bhattacharya,* J., held that Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions in the e-tender notice does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Act and hence, dismissed the present application on the grounds of maintainability. [BGM & M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 486, order dated 19-01-2024]. Read more…
Anti-arbitration injunction in international commercial arbitration
Delhi High Court grants anti-arbitration injunction in an international commercial arbitration.
Plaintiff, Techfab International (P) Ltd. sought a decree of declaration that any orders passed, or proceedings conducted by the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Council for National and International Commercial Arbitration, Chennai (‘CNICA’) in Midima Holdings Ltd. (Malawi) v. Techfab International (P) Ltd. (India), PCA Case No. AA773 (‘Midima Holdings Case’), were null and void. Plaintiff also sought an anti-arbitration injunction restraining defendant, Midima Holdings Ltd., from proceeding with the said arbitration proceedings, apart from costs. Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., observed that though the arbitration provision did say that arbitration could be conducted in any other ‘United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (‘UNCITRAL’) following countries’, that was subject to a mutual decision of the parties, and there was nothing on record to show that any such decision was taken by mutual consent of the parties. Thus, the Court restrained defendant from proceeding further with arbitral proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the CNICA, Chennai, in Midima Holdings Case, till the next date of hearing. [Techfab International (P) Ltd. v. Midima Holdings Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 699, Order dated 19-01-2024] Read more
Limitation period for arbitration
Limitation period for arbitration to be decided by Arbitral Tribunal while passing order u/s 20 of A&C Act’; Telangana HC appoints nominee arbitrator u/s 11(6)
An application was filed under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) by applicant, East Hyderabad Expressway Limited seeking to intervene into the matter and appoint a nominee Arbitrator of respondents to resolve the dispute. C. V. Bhaskar Reddy, J. appointed a nominee Arbitrator for respondents and held that whether applicant’s claim was barred by lapse of time was a matter which was to be decided by Arbitral Tribunal at the time of making an order under Section 20 of the Act. [East Hyderabad Expressway Ltd. v. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 12, order dated: 22-01-2024]. Read more…
Arbitration clause in Agreement
Calcutta High Court upholds Arbitration Clause; directs parties to resolve dispute arising from distributor agreement through Arbitration.
While deciding an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), seeking arbitration based on the agreement, a single-judge bench comprising of Krishna Rao,* J., found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of non-existence of the agreement. The Court deemed the, and the parties were directed to arbitration based on the forum selection clause. [Suresh Dhanuka v. Shahnaz Husain, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 643, order dated 24-01-2024]. Read more…
Scope of interference in Arbitration Award
‘Scope of interference in arbitration award passed u/s 34, 37 of A&C Act is limited unless error appears on face of record’; Telangana HC dismisses appeal
An appeal was filed against the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy, (‘the ADJ’) wherein, the application to set aside the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Respondent 1, was dismissed. M. G. Priyadarsini, J.*, dismissed the appeal and opined that the scope of interfering with the arbitration award was very limited until and unless there was an error apparent on the face of the record and there was perversity in the award. [Nile Ltd. v. Gurdip Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 11, decided on: 25-01-2024]. Read more…
Non-signatory guarantor as arbitration party
Issue of non-signatory guarantor to be impleaded as party to arbitration is for arbitral tribunal to decide: Delhi High Court
In a petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator, Jasmeet Singh, J., referred to Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 163 and opined that the Court in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) was only required to see the existence of arbitration clause and the issue of non-signatory should be left open for the arbitral tribunal to decide. The Court further stated that the fact that whether Respondents 3-5 could be bound by the loan agreement and could be impleaded as parties to arbitral proceedings was left open for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide. Thus, the Court referred the parties to arbitration for adjudication of their dispute arising from the loan agreement, and appointed Justice Ali Mohammad Magray, Retired Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. [Moneywise Financial Services (P) Ltd. v. Dilip Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1896, Order dated 26-02-2024]. Read more…
Arbitration Act supersedes Institutional Arbitration Rules
Bombay High Court clarifies provisions of Arbitration Act to be above Institutional Arbitration Rules.
In a matter pertaining to challenge against appointment of arbitrator by Era International particularly pointing towards Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (‘MCIA’) Rules as against the applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), Bharati Dangre, J. clarified that the provisions under the Arbitration Act were above the institutional arbitration rules. [Era International v. Aditya Birla Global Trading India Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 835, decided on 26-02-2024]. Read more…
Applicable interest rate under Arbitration Act
Calcutta High Court determines applicable interest rate based on amended Section 31(7)(b) of the Act.
In an application filed by the petitioner to determine the applicable interest rate in the execution proceedings related to an Award, a single-judge bench comprising of Moushumi Bhattacharya,* J., held that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the awarded amount, and the rate of interest would be 2% higher than the prevalent rate on the date of the Award. The Court calculated the applicable interest rate as 15.75% and directed the respondent to pay the interest along with the principal amount by a specified date. [Amiya Steel (P) Ltd. v. SAIL, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2053, order dated 27-02-2024]. Read more…
Recordings in Facilitation Council award
Award by Facilitation Council without recording failure of conciliation or reference to arbitration void; Jharkhand High Court remits matter
In an appeal challenging judgment dated 3-03-2016 dismissing writ petition holding that a challenge to award passed by Jharkhand MSE Facilitation Council (memo no. 3342 of 12-12-2013) not to be entertained in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India, while liberty was given to the petitioner (‘buyer’) to avail statutory remedy, the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, ACJ and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. followed Supreme Court’s decisions to remit the matter back to the Facilitation Council quashing the previous award since the same was not passed in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’) and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSME Act’)… [G.P.T. Infraprojects Limited v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 184, decided on 29-01-2024]. Read more…
Special Officer to safeguard Iron Ore
Calcutta High Court appoints Special Officer to safeguard Iron Ore as post-arbitral award interim measures under Section 9 of the Act
In an application preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), seeking interim relief as the award holder to prevent respondent from selling iron ore to third parties, a single-judge bench comprising of Krishna Rao,* J., held that Section 9 of the Act provides for interim relief at various stages, including after the arbitral award is made but before enforcement under Section 36. The Court appointed a Special Officer to preserve the iron ore and disposed of the petition. [Synergy Ispat (P) Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 892, order dated 31-01-2024]. Read more…
Domain name transferred to Harvard
Delhi High Court upholds arbitral award for transfer of Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute’s domain name ‘kashmirharvard.edu.in’ to Harvard College.
Petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’), assailing an arbitral award dated 04-04-2023 under the “.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (‘INDRP’) and by the impugned award, the arbitrator had directed that a domain name registered by petitioner i.e., ‘kashmirharvard.edu.in’, be transferred to respondent, President and Fellows of Harvard College in USA. Prateek Jalan, J.*, held that it did not find any grounds to hold that the impugned award was contrary to Section 34(2) of the Act. The Court opined that the arguments advanced by petitioner showed a scant regard for the limited scope of intervention with an award in an international commercial arbitration, or for the process of the Court. Further, the pleas were advanced, which were contrary to the record, and attempt after attempt was made to mislead the Court. Thus, the Court imposed Rs 50,000 costs against petitioner. [Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 612, decided on 31-01-2024]. Read more…
Frivolous contest over Arbitrator Appointment
Punjab and Haryana Court deprecates frivolous contest by State instrumentalities over appointment of arbitrators.
In a petition filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, Suvir Sehgal, J. deprecated the State instrumentalities’ general and strong approach to contest over appointment of arbitrators. [Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab Heritage and Tourism Promotion Board, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 528, decided on 6-02-2024]. Read more…
No claim certificate
‘No claim certificate’ by a party does not automatically render dispute non-arbitrable: Gujarat HC
In an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for appointment of Arbitrator, Sunita Agarwal, CJ., allowed the application and held that the petitioner’s claim was not stale or non-arbitrable if ‘No Claim Certificate’ was issued. [Poll Cont Associates v. Narmada Clean Tech Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 1123, decided on: 09-02-2024]. Read more…
Special laws override general laws
Special laws override general laws| Consumer Forums must adhere to Arbitration mandate under Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act: Calcutta High Court
In a revision petition challenging the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums’ jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the petitioner society and the respondent, a single-judge bench comprising of Prasenjit Biswas,* J., while establishing that special laws override general laws and consumer forums cannot usurp jurisdiction conferred upon special forums, held that the dispute between the parties should have been referred to arbitration as per the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, since, the Consumer Protection Act had no application. [Secy, E & NF Railway Junior Coop. Credit Society Ltd., Eastern Railway v. Jyotish Chandra Sarkar, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1668, order dated 20-02-2024]. Read more…
Cost Regime under Arbitration Act
Bombay HC upholds costs awarded by Arbitrator in conformity with the cost regime under Section 31(A) of the Act.
In an interim application seeking stay on operation, execution or enforcement of award dated 27-07-2023 during the pendency of Arbitration Petition, RI Chagla, J. upheld the costs awarded by the arbitrator finding the same in conformity with the cost regime under Section 31(A) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’). [Chowgule and Company Private Limited v. Fomento Commodities Pte Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 925, Order dated 18-03-2024] . Read more…
Section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
‘Order not so perverse to shock the conscience of Court’; Delhi HC dismisses petition challenging award passed by arbitrator
In a petition challenging the order passed by the arbitrator rejecting an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the A&C Act’), Subramonium Prasad, J.*, opined that a perusal of the impugned order showed that the arbitrator had yet not fully closed the issue and had decided to adjudicate on the issue after evidence was led on the same issue. Further, the Court opined that since the award passed by the arbitrator was not so perverse to shock the conscience of this Court, it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the present writ petition. [Oriel Financial Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Bestech Advisors (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2221, decided on 20-03-2024]. Read more…
Appointing arbitrator from narrow panel
Appointment of an Arbitrator from a narrow panel is violative of S. 12(5) of the Act: Bombay High Court
In Arbitration applications to resolve disputes that had arisen due to the contracts, a single bench of Bharati Dangre, J. held that the appointment of an arbitrator from a narrow panel of four arbitrators is violative of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) as it restricts free choice and increases suspicion that favorites are chosen from the panel. [Telex Advertising v. Central Railway, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1094, decided on 27-03-2024]. Read more…
Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Allahabad HC partially sets aside arbitral award; Says Arbitrator’s dangerous precedent undermines sanctity of contracts and trust in arbitration
In an arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’), filed for setting aside arbitral award, Shekhar B. Saraf, J.* has held that the impugned award of Rs.6,22,268/ along with interest in favour of the respondent on account of repairing of defects in transformer was in violation of Section 28(3) of the Act, as it stood before the Amendment Act, 2015, and set aside the arbitral award to that limited extent. [Union of India Through Garrison Engineer AF v. Yauk Engineers, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1046, decided on 05-4-2024]. Read more…
DMRC’s Curative Petition
Supreme Court allows DMRC’s Curative Petition against arbitral award in favour of Delhi Airport Metro Express
In a curative petition filed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (‘DMRC’) against the Judgment passed by two-judge Bench of Supreme Court in Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. v. DMRC, (2022) 1 SCC 131, wherein the Court set aside the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and restored the arbitral award, the three Judge Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud*,CJI, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ. while allowing the curative petition, held that the impugned judgment which interfered with the judgment of the Division Bench has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The judgment of the Division Bench in the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (‘the Act’) was based on a correct application of the test under Section 34 of the Act and provided more than adequate reasons to conclude that the arbitral award suffered from perversity and patent illegality. There was no valid basis for this Court to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution, and the interference has resulted in restoring a patently illegal award, which has caused a grave miscarriage of justice. [DMRC Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., (2024) 6 SCC 357, 10-04-2024]. Read more…
Service by email and WhatsApp
Delhi High Court refers dispute to Arbitration after finding service by email and WhatsApp sufficient.
Petitioner had filed the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties under the lease agreement dated 21-03-2018 (‘the agreement’). Prateek Jalan, J., opined that although service by e-mail and WhatsApp was sufficient, it might also be noted in the agreement itself that respondent’s address for the purpose of correspondence was the same address at which service was attempted. The Court opined that considering that service upon the respondents had been duly affected by e-mail and WhatsApp on 20-02-2024, it was not necessary to await the respondents’ appearance any further. Thus, the Court opined that prima facie there existed an arbitration agreement between the parties and the arbitration proceedings had been duly invoked against Respondents 1 and 2. Accordingly, the Court referred the disputes between the parties to arbitration under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Shershah Road, New Delhi (‘DIAC’). The Court requested DIAC to nominate arbitrator from its panel, and the arbitration proceedings would be governed by the Rules of DIAC, including the remuneration of the arbitrator. [Lease Plan India (P) Ltd. v. Rudraksh Pharma Distributor, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2687, Order dated 10-04-2024]. Read more…
Non-existence of arbitration clause
Calcutta High Court dismisses application due to non-existence of arbitration clause in subcontractor’s work order
In an application filed by the defendant, CLE Private Limited, seeking the dismissal of the suit and the initiation of arbitration citing a forum selection clause and an arbitration provision, Krishna Rao, J., dismissed the defendant’s application, noting that the arbitration clause and forum selection clauses were not applicable to the plaintiff, Dascon Sourav Commercial Private Limited , and that a reference to the document in the contract should be such that shows the intention to incorporate the arbitration clause contained in the document into the contract. [Dascon Sourav Commercial Private Limited v. CLE Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 3590, Order dated 10-04-2024]. Read more…
Policy circular not an arbitration clause
A policy circular doesn’t serve as arbitration clause without explicit consent: Calcutta High Court
An application was filed seeking review of an order dated 01-12-2022 passed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator was dismissed on the ground that there was no valid arbitration clause between the parties. Ravi Krishan Kapur, J., held that the applicant is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for as the Circular dated 07-04-2017 merely expresses a desire and the arbitration clause has not been incorporated in the contract. [Dhansar Engineering Company Private Limited v. Eastern Coalfields Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 4028, decided on 18-04-2024]. Read more…
Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator
Intention of parties can be construed from the correspondence exchanged between them: Delhi HC appoints Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.) as a Sole Arbitrator
A petition was filed by petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’), seeking appointment of an arbitrator with respect to the disputes arising between parties. Prathiba M. Singh, J., opined that the following factors would be in favour of appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of all disputes, i.e., (a) to avoid multiplicity of disputes; (b) all contracts relate to the same project and form part of the same series of works; and (c) the correspondence between parties showed that they were treated as part of the same series of contracts. The Court thus appointed Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.) as a Sole Arbitrator. [KGPS Mechanical (P) Ltd. v. Cinda Engineering and Construction (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2985, decided on 22-4-2024]. Read more…
Appointment of an arbitrator
Delhi High Court dismisses S. 11 Arbitration petition due to Debit Notes issued after MSMED registration in arbitration proceedings.
A petition was filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes inter-se between the parties. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J., dismissed the petition since arbitration has been started before MSME and the debit notes on which the present application has been filed are after the registration of the supplier under MSME. [Prakash Indutries Limited v. Sumeet International Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3036, decided on 23-04-2024]. Read more…
Erroneous application of law
Arbitration award cannot be set aside on erroneous application of law unless patently illegal: Allahabad High Court reiterates
In an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for setting aside the order passed by the Commercial Court, wherein the Court upheld the arbitrator’s award, Arun Bhansali, J. and Vikas Budhwar, CJ., while upholding the decision of the Commercial Court, observed that an award is not ‘patently illegal’ for mere erroneous application of law or appreciation of evidence. [Union Of India Through Garrison Engineer v. Satendra Nath Sanjeev Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1548, Order dated 23-04-2024]. Read more…
Limitation decided in Section 11 petition
Can the issue of limitation be decided in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act? Delhi High Court answers
In a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’), Prateek Jalan, J., allowing the petition, observed that the issue of limitation can be examined by the Court in a petition under Section 11 of the Act, only if the limitation is plainly apparent from the petition and the accompanying documents filed. [Kimaya Buildtech LLP v. K. C. Software Pvt. Ltd, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3436, Order dated 29.04.2024]. Read more…
Seat of Arbitration
‘Seat of arbitration is the place where arbitral proceedings are anchored’; Delhi High Court rejects petition filed u/s 34 of Arbitration Act
In a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) filed to challenge an arbitral award passed by the District Level Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Pathankot (‘Facilitation Council’) constituted under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSME Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Prateek Jalan, J. rejected the petition while stating that the circumstances of the case do not suggest that the seat of arbitration was at any place other than the venue. [Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corpn. v. Satinder Mahajan, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3206, Decided on 01-05-2024]. Read more…
Appointment of arbitrator
Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award due to violation of S. 12(5) Arbitration Act
A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (‘the Act’) was filed by Union of India (‘UoI’), the petitioner, for setting aside an award passed by the sole arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally by UoI. Jasmeet Singh, J., while allowing the petition, held that an award passed by an arbitrator who is appointed unilaterally is a nullity and is liable to be set aside. [Union Of India v. M. V. Omni Projects (India) Ltd., O.M.P. (Comm) 355 of 2023, Order dated 08-05-2024]. Read more…
Notice u/s 21 of Arbitration Act
Mere sending notice u/s 21 of Arbitration Act not sufficient; receipt of notice is prerequisite for commencement of proceedings: Delhi HC
In a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J., dismissed the petition while holding that the mere issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act does not constitute service of the notice and observed that receipt of the notice by the respondent is mandatory to commence arbitration proceedings. [Indian Spinal Injuris Centre v. Galaxy India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4385, Order dated 08-05-2024]. Read more…
Application for extending Tribunal’s mandate
Application for extending mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for passing Award to be filed only before ‘Court’ as defined u/s 2(1)(e) of A&C Act: Andhra Pradesh HC
An application was filed by the applicants under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal for passing an Award. The Division Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.* and A.V. Sesha Sai, J., ,opined that if a court making a reference under Section 11(6) of the Act became functus officio, the question of seeking an extension in terms of Section 29-A of the Act from the High Court or the Supreme Court, assuming that it had passed the initial order of reference, would not arise except where the High Court was vested with original jurisdiction, which in any case the Andhra Pradesh High Court was not vested with. [Dr. V.V. Subbarao v. Dr. Appa Rao Mukkamala, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 1668, decided on 10-05-2024]. Read more…
Termination of Arbitrator’s mandate
Will arbitration proceedings survive if mandate of arbitrator is terminated? Delhi HC answers
In a petition filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) seeking substitution of the sole arbitrator, Prathiba M. Singh, J., while appointing a new arbitrator, noted that the initial arbitrator’s mandate was terminated due to non-responsiveness and that termination of the arbitrator’s mandate would not culminate into termination of the arbitral proceedings. [Extramarks Education India Pvt. Ltd. v. Saraswati Shishu Mandir, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3710, Decided on 15-05-2024]. Read more…
Termination of Arbitration Proceedings
Can Arbitration proceedings be terminated on claimant’s failure to request Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing? SC answers
In a civil appeal concerning the issue about the legality and validity of the order of termination of the arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Arbitration Act’) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the division bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. has held the following. [Dani Wooltex Corpn. v. Sheil Properties (P) Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 1, 16-05-2024]. Read more…
Existence of arbitration clause
Court is required to look only into existence of the arbitration clause at the stage of appointing arbitrator u/s 11 of Arbitration Act: Jharkhand HC
In an arbitration application filed by the Petitioner for appointment of sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the AC Act’) for resolution of disputes between the parties, Shree Chandrashekhar, ACJ., opined that under Section 11 of the AC Act, in cases where the parties did not agree to a procedure for appointment of an arbitrator for resolving the dispute on making an application by the aggrieved party, the power under Section 11(6) of the AC Act was exercisable by the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice. [Smart Chip (P) Ltd. v. Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1577, Order dated 17-05-2024]. Read more…
Section 37 – Appealable Orders
Orissa High Court explains scope of High Court’s power under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
In an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) against the judgment passed by the District Judge denying to set aside the Arbitral Award passed in favor of respondent-claimant, D. Dash, J., upheld the arbitral award and stated that the grounds for setting aside an award include patent illegality, but this must be a fundamental error affecting the root of the matter. [Govt. of Odisha v. Jagannath Choudhury, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1670, order dated 20-05-2024]. Read more…
Binding value of foreign order
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. [Uphealth Holdings, Inc. v. Syed Sabahat Azim, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6311, Decided on 22-05-2024]. Read more…
Arbitration proceedings as a bar for IBC proceedings
Can arbitration proceedings act as a bar for proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC? Delhi HC answers
In a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (‘Arbitration Act’) for appointing of an arbitrator, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that mere initiation of arbitration is no bar for corporate debtor to pursue remedies under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’). [Pitambar Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manju Sharma, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3995, Decided on 22-05-2024]. Read more…
Modification of Arbitration Award
[S. 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] Any attempt to modify an award would amount to crossing the ‘Lakshman Rekha’; Sikkim HC reiterates
The parties to a contract, subject to an arbitration clause, had referred their dispute to arbitration; the arbitral award (“Award”) therefrom was challenged by the appellant through an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) before the Commercial Court, North Sikkim (“Trial Court”), that modified the Award through its judgment to some extent. The same was challenged before the Division Bench comprising of Biswanath Somadder, CJ, and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.*, by both the parties through two connected appeals under Section 37 of the ACA. The Court discussed the scope of modification of an arbitral award by the court; the Bench found that the first appeal was not maintainable, whereas the second appeal was allowed. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the Trial Court was partly set-aside. The Court reiterated Supreme Court’s decision in SV Sundaram v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 623, wherein it was observed that any attempt to modify an award under Section 34 would amount to crossing the “Lakshman Rekha”. [Union of India v. MG Contractors (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Sikk 29, decided on 28-05-2024]. Read more…
Appointment of Arbitrators Post-2015 Amendment
Delhi High Court | Appointment of Arbitrators Post-2015 Amendment must adhere to eligibility criteria regardless of contract execution and arbitration commencement dates
A petition was filed under Section 14 read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) seeking substitution of the Sole Arbitrator as the Sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes between the parties was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. Prathiba M Singh, J., held that notwithstanding the date of execution of the contract and the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, the appointment of an arbitrator by reasons of resignation/ withdrawal/ any other reason, after coming into force of the 2015 Amendment shall have to meet the test of eligibility in terms of Section 12 read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. [Radhika Engineering Co v. Telecommunication Consultants India Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4264, decided on 28-05-2024]. Read more…
Arbitration and alternative remedy
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’). [Pallab Ghosh v. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 751, decided on 13-06-2024]. Read more…
Extension of Tribunal’s mandate after expiry
Can mandate of arbitral tribunal be extended u/s 29A of the Arbitration Act, even after expiry of such mandate? Delhi HC answers
In an application filed by counter-claimant under Section 29-A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Manoj Jain, J., even though the arbitration proceedings should have been completed within 12 months of the completion of pleadings in the counterclaim, the Court was empowered to extend the mandate, even after expiry of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal. [SS Steel Fabricators and Contractors v. Narsing Decor, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4416, order dated 19-06-2024]. Read more…
INDRP Policy and Third Parties
‘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. [Mukesh Udeshi v. Jindal Steel Power Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4564, Decided on 02-07-2024]. Read more…
Section 21 Notice
‘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. [ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4530, Decided on 04-07-2024]. Read more…
Allegations of coercion
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. [Nafees Ahmed v. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corpn. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4664, decided on 09-07-2024] . Read more…
Arbitration clause in invoices
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. [Dhawan Box Sheet Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. SEL Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4779, Decided on 10-07-2024]. Read more…
Reliance v. UIDAI
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. [Reliance Communications Limited v. Unique Identification Authority of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4795, Decide on 15-07-2024]. Read more…
Arbitration between firm’s partners
‘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. [Ambrish H. Soni v. Chetan Narendra Dhakan, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2280, decided on 16-07-2024]. Read more…
Commercial Arbitration Dispute
Order granting/declining ex-parte interim measure in Commercial Arbitration Dispute is appealable under S. 37, A&C Act, 1996: Karnataka SC
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. [KLR Group Enterprises v. Madhu H.V., 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 65, decided on 19-07-2024]. Read more…
Arbitral Award passed by Sole Arbitrator
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. [Pulin Comtrade Ltd. v. Handicrafts and Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5630, Decided on 24-07-2024]. Read more…
Section 34 of Arbitration Act
‘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. [Krishan Kumar v. Shakuntla Agency Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5081, decided on: 25-07-2024]. Read more…
Damages specifically excluded by contract
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 Rs.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 Rs.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. [Plus 91 Security Solutions v. NEC Corporation India Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5114, decided on 29-07-2024]. Read more…
Yuvraj Singh against real estate developer
‘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. [Yuvraj Singh Bundhel v. Brillient Etoile Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5319, decided on 05-08-2024]. Read more…
Awards rendered by MSME Council
Awards rendered by MSME Council can be challenged under Section 34 of A&C Act and not under Art. 226: Orissa High Court
In an intra-court appeal against the decision of the Single Judge whereby a challenge to an award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Cuttack (‘the Council’) under Article 226 of the Constitution was refused to be entertained holding that the said award can be challenged only in accordance with the provisions prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act’), the Division Bench of Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Murahari Sri Raman, JJ. found no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by Single Judge, accordingly the appeal was dismissed. [AES India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Odisha, W.A No.968 of 2024, decided on: 04-11-2024]. Read more…
Judicial scrutiny under Section 11
SC clarifies scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of Arbitration Act: Sets aside Bombay HC ruling on appointment of arbitrator
In an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court, wherein the High Court dismissed the application preferred by the appellant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act, 1996’) seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and claims in terms of Clause 18.12 of the Master Services Agreement (‘MSA’) executed between the appellant and the respondent, the three judge bench of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, said that the High Court exceeded the limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of Section 11 by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix. The High Court erroneously proceeded to assess the auditor’s report in detail and dismissed the arbitration application. [Goqii Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3189, 07-11-2024]. Read more…
Award treated as deemed decree
Arbitral Award treated as deemed decree; Execution can be initiated anywhere such decree can be executed: Allahabad HC
In a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, wherein the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge, Etawah to hear an execution petition for an award passed in Kanpur was challenged, the single judge bench of Neeraj Tiwari, J. held that since the land being acquired in in Etawah, the passing of the arbitral award at Kanpur will have no bearing in filing of execution proceeding at Etawah in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) as well as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [National Highway Authority of India v. Jagpal Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine All 6886, decided on 11-11-2024]. Read more…
