Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: June 5 To June 11, 2022

A Reference To Arbitration Can Be Declined By The Court If The Dispute Is A Deadwood: Bombay High Court

Case Title: D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr.

The Bombay High Court has held that once the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the Court can decline to make a reference to arbitration only if it is satisfied that the dispute is non-existent or that it has become a deadwood.

The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar reiterated that the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is extremely limited and that the arbitrability of the dispute is required to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Delhi High Court:

Party Can Raise Additional Grounds Based On The Award Passed After The Case Is Remitted To Tribunal Under Section 34(4) Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: UEM India Pvt. Ltd. versus ONGC Ltd.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, after the matter is remanded back to it by the Court under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not a fresh arbitral award that can be challenged by filing a separate petition under Section 34(1).

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a party cannot be precluded from raising additional grounds, which had arisen as a result of the subsequent order passed by Arbitral Tribunal after the matter was remitted to it by the Court, to challenge the arbitral award.

Order Passed By The Arbitrator Allowing Meetings As Per Convenience Of Parties, Would Not Change The Seat Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Sat Kartar Tour N Travels versus ONGC Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 550

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitrator holding that the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted at any other place, would not change the seat of Arbitration as provided in the Arbitration Clause.

The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the Arbitrator cannot decide anything contrary to what has been decided by the parties.

Gujarat High Court:

A Party Cannot Circumvent The Dispute Resolution Process After Agreeing On The Same: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus Airports Authority of India

The Gujarat High Court has held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process after agreeing on the same.

The Single Bench of Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri held that a party is bound to follow the mechanism provided under the arbitration clause that requires it to first raise the dispute before the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) and pre-deposit the amount in dispute, if no challenge is made by the party to the validity of the terms of the clause.

Karnataka High Court:

Landlord-Tenant Disputes Governed By Transfer Of Property Act Are Arbitrable In Nature: Reiterates Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Gokaldas Images Private Limited versus Aries Agro-Vet Associates (Pvt) Limited & Anr.

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable in nature.

The Single Bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia versus Durga Trading Corporation (2020) had overruled its decision in Himangi Enterprises versus Amaljit Singh Ahulvalia (2017). The Court thus held that the landlord-tenant disputes between the parties under the lease deed, which was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, could be referred to arbitration.

Petition Under S. 11(6) Of The A&C Act Would Be Premature When The Precondition Of Conciliation Is Not Fulfilled: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sobha Ltd. versus Nava Vishwa Shashi Vijaya and Ors.

The High Court of Karnataka has held that the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be premature when the parties have not complied with the precondition of conciliation.

The Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi dismissed the arbitration petition for the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the petitioner had directly approached the Court without taking recourse to the precondition of conciliation.

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Modified By Executing Court On The Basis Of Just A Memo: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Abhiram Infra Projects Private Limited versus The Commissioner, Karnataka Slum Development Board

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 198

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that in the absence of an application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for correction of typographical errors in the arbitral award, the Court cannot pass an order modifying and correcting the arbitral award on the basis of a Memo filed before it by a party.

The Single Bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh held that after the lapse of 30 days from the passing of the arbitral award, no application for rectification of typographical mistakes under Section 33 of the A&C Act can be entertained.