Arbitration
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹75 Lakh Compensation Awarded Against Hersheys India In Jumpin Drink Manufacturing Dispute
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside a Rs 75 lakh compensation awarded to Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd. against Hersheys India Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over the contract to manufacture and package the fruit drink brand Jumpin. The court said the compensation was “picked virtually out of the hat” and had no basis.A single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, in an order made available...
Deliberate Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Not Grounds To Resist Enforcement Of Award: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that when a party purposely fails to avail an opportunity duly accorded by the Arbitral Tribunal to present its case, it cannot later use its own default as a ground to resist enforcement of the resultant award. Facts The Petitioner, M/s Vittera BV (“Vittera”) filed the present petition seeking enforcement...
Arbitrators Cannot Be Disqualified For Merely Participating In Prior Arbitration Involving Interpretation Of Similar Clause: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) filed by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) against an arbitral award passed in favor of British Marine PLC.(Respondent). SAIL entered into Contract of Affreightment (COA) with the respondent for transportation of 3 million metric tonnes (±5%) of coking coal over five...
Rajasthan High Court Declares GAFTA London Award Enforceable As Decree; Reiterates Narrow Scope Of “Public Policy” U/S 48 Arbitration Act
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed objections against the enforcement of a foreign award raised by Raj Grow Impex LLP stating that the scope of interference is extremely narrow at the enforcement stage and that an award holder having won before both the tribunal and appellate tribunals should not be left to feel that he has won the battle but lost the war. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand...
Court May Direct Deposit Of 100% Of Awarded Amount Before Granting Stay U/S 36(3) Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court held that directing a 100% deposit of the awarded amount as a pre-condition for granting stay under section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) is legally valid and consistent with the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi held that “where the arbitral award is in the nature of a money decree,...
Limitation Commences When Award Is Received By Authority Competent To Decide On Challenging It U/S 34 A&C Act: Manipur High Court
The Manipur High Court held that in abitration cases, in case of government entities, the limitation period commences from the date when the award is received by the person who is competent to take decision on whether to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and not merely when the award is emailed or received by the counsel. A bench...
Filing Certified Copy Of Arbitration Agreement Not Mandatory When Undisputed Agreement Is Already On Record: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court held that an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be rejected merely on the ground that a certified copy of the agreement was not produced along with it when the same agreement containing the arbitration clause is already on the record and undisputed between the parties. Justice Maulik J. Shelat...
Courts Not Expressly Barred From Dismissing Petitions Under Arbitration Act For Non-Prosecution: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court held that negligence or inaction on the part of counsel cannot justify condonation of unexplained and long delay. The court further held that the court is not prohibited from dismissing the petitions under section 34 for non prosecution. Justice Maulik J. Shelat held that “there is no express bar under the Act, 1996 not to dismiss such applications...
Order Terminating Proceedings For Non-Payment Of Arbitral Fees Can Be Challenged U/S 14 A&C Act, Not Through Writ Petition: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court held that when the arbitration proceedings are terminated under section 38(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for non-payment of arbitral fees, the proper remedy is to file application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act and not a writ petition. Justice Manish Pitale held that “in situations where the arbitral proceedings...
Compensation U/S 3G National Highways Act Can Be Challenged Under Arbitration Act, Writ Petition Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that compensation awarded under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 can be challenged under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and writ petitions for the same will not be maintainable.A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held“Section 3G(6) of the Act, 1956 expressly provides that the provisions of...