Interpretation Of Contractual Stipulations Must Be Done To Give Full Effect To Arbitration Agreement: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that it is a well-established principle of law if there is any contractual stipulation between the parties which under-mines the scope of the arbitration clause. Then, the same will be given an interpretation in the manner which gives full effect to the arbitration agreement between the parties. Brief Facts: The dispute arises with respect to a purchase order for supply of certain drugs to the respondent for the sum...

Findings Of Calcutta HC Cannot Be Challenged Before Courts At Patna After Objections Over Jurisdiction Were Dismissed: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar has held that the findings of the Calcutta High Court cannot be challenged in the Courts at Patna. Additionally, the court noted that the respondent had first approached the Calcutta High Court by preferring an application under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act would be attracted, and...

[Arbitration Act] S.2(1)(f) Is Non-Derogable, Applicability Cannot Be Excluded Even By Mutual Consent Of Parties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration Act which defined the International Commercial Arbitration is a non derogable provision and its applicability cannot be excluded even by mutual consent of the parties. Brief Facts This petition has been filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against two awards passed...

Delhi High Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Gas Supply Dispute, Invalidates Previous Arbitration Clause In View Of CORE Judgment

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that the arbitration agreement which contemplated the appointment of the sole Arbitrator to be made out of a panel of three persons chosen by the petitioner was no longer valid in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company....

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Claim Of Rs.15 Lakh Awarded By Arbitral Tribunal Due To Lack Of Evidence

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that after persuading the Supreme Court to refer the disputes to arbitration, it is not open for the appellant to now question the validity of the reference. Additionally, the court held that the respondent had not placed any evidence on record to establish the cost of such construction. Therefore,...

Court Not Having Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/S 34 Cannot Go Into Merits Of Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that once the court comes to the conclusion that it didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it cannot go into the merits of the case. This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act arose out of an order passed by the District Judge by...

Ineligibility Of Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged First Time Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of of Chief justice Mr. K.R.Shriram and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy has held that the ineligibility of the Arbitrator cannot be challenged for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act when there were enough opportunities to challenge the same in the earlier proceedings. Brief Facts This appeal has been filed under section 37 of...

Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Post Expiry Of Tenancy Agreement: Allahabad High Court

While entertaining a revision petition related to a tenancy agreement, the Allahabad High Court has held that a clause for arbitration cannot be invoked for any disputes that arise after the contract has come to an end.“… it clearly transpires that existence of a contract is necessary for invocation of arbitration clause prescribed under the agreement as the clause would perish with...

Two Arbitration Petitions For Same Relief Cannot Be Filed: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Chief Justice Mr. Ramesh Sinha has held that two arbitration petitions for the same relief cannot be filed. Brief Facts This petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The applicant is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act 1973. The society comprises of lease...

"Maintainability" And "Jurisdiction" Cannot Be Conflated While Deciding Application U/S 20 Of Arbitration Act, 1940: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Amit Borkar has held that maintainability and jurisdiction cannot be used interchangeably as they connote different things. Lack of jurisdiction results in the nullity of proceedings, as the court inherently lacks authority to adjudicate. Non-compliance with maintainability bars leads to dismissal without deciding the merits of the case but does...

Interest On Awarded Amount Cannot Exceed Rate Of 6% As Provided U/S 30(7) Of J&K Arbitration Act: High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court bench of Justice M A Chowdhary has held that section 30(7) of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 1997 which was amended in 2010 is retrospective in nature. The interest on the awarded amount cannot exceed the rate of 6% per annum as provided in the section. Brief Facts This petition under section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: November, 2024

Supreme Court Government Entity Can't Be Given Differential Treatment While Staying Operation Of Arbitral Award : Supreme Court Case Title: International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd Versus Kamarajar Port Limited, Case Number- Civil Appeal No 12097 of 2024 Recently, the Supreme Court disapproved of a High Court's decision to exempt a government entity from depositing other...