Arbitration
Prima Facie No Arbitration Agreement Between Parties, Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 11(5) A&C Petition
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition filed under Section 11 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, noting that prima facie there was no arbitration agreement between Petitioner and Respondent. The High Court noted that Section 8(1), as amended in 2015, mandates the referral of parties to arbitration by a judicial authority...
When Parties Agree For No Interest Payable Till Arbitral Award Is Made, Arbitrator Bound By This Agreement: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that when parties agree that no interest shall be payable, the Arbitral Tribunal is bound by that agreement. The bench held that that such an agreement is not ultra vires under Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872. Brief Facts: The Petitioner challenged an Arbitral Award, specifically contesting the portion wherein...
Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 4th March to 11th March 2024
Delhi High Court Section 42 A&C | Delhi High Court Terminates Arbitrator's Mandate Who Disclosed Award Prematurely To Party During Proceedings Case Title: Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Union Of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 259 The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh terminated mandate of an arbitrator who disclosed the award prematurely...
Delhi High Court Ceases Mandate Of Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Under General Conditions Of Contract
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma rejected the contention presented by Respondent, that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator made in accordance with the contract cannot be challenged and the only option available to the petitioner is to challenge the mandate of the arbitrator. It emphasized that the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator as...
Fraud Regarding Internal Management Of Company Doesn't Go To Root Of Contract, Dispute Is Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that fraud alleging regarding the internal management of the company doesn't go to the root of the contract. Therefore, the bench held that the dispute concerning the lack of authority to enter into a contract are arbitrable. The bench held that the Court while deciding a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration...
Proceedings Under IBC Doesn't Exclude Court Jurisdiction To Entertain Section 11 A&C Applications: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that proceedings contemplated in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) do not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the court or authorities to entertain applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act or other proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor against another party. It held that even if...
Requirement Of Pre-litigation Mediation Under Section 12-A Of Commercial Courts Act Is Mandatory: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that the requirement of pre-litigation meditation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory in nature. Section 12-A of the Act outlines the mandatory requirement for pre-institution mediation before filing a suit, provided urgent interim relief is not sought. The Central Government may...
Allegations On Arbitrator's Independence Under Item 24 Of 5th Schedule Of Arbitration Act Is Not Automatically A Ground For Disqualification: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar held that the allegation under Item No. 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn't automatically disqualify the arbitrator without disclosing any specific relationship between the arbitrator and the party. Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule states that doubts about an arbitrator's independence...
Section 9 Not Res Judicata For Section 17 Application When Withdrawal Is Conditional: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 37(2)(B) Application
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Section 9 application under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot act as res judicata for Section 17 application when the withdrawal of Section 9 application is conditional between the parties. The bench dismissed the reliance on Kanchan Kapoor v. Swaran Kumar noting that the principles of res...
Conditions Of Remand Not Followed, Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Under NHAI Act In Writ Jurisdiction
The Allahabad High Court has held that existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside an arbitral award passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Jhansi acting as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the...
Section 29A Petition Maintainable If Filed Before Award Is Delivered and Not If Award Is Delivered : Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when filed before the award is delivered during the ongoing petition, but becomes non-maintainable if filed after the award is delivered and proceedings for setting aside have commenced. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to...
Negotiation Requires Active Communication Between Parties, Non-Responsive Party Not Actively Participating: Delhi High Court Refers Matter To Arbitration
The Delhi High Court single bench comprising held that 'negotiation' necessitates communication between the involved parties, asserting that a party failing to respond to legal notices from another cannot be considered actively participating in the negotiation process. Consequently, Justice Sharma referred the matter to arbitral tribunal. Brief Facts: The matter pertained...