Sec. 11, A&C Act Petition Must Be Filed In High Court Where Cause Of Action Arose, Not Necessarily At Principle Place Of Business: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that such a petition should be filed at the place of the subordinate office of the corporation. “In the present case as well, the subordinate office of the respondent is situated at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and for the...

Arbitrator's Finding Based On Proper Appreciation And Interpretation Of Prevalent Conditions: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Section 37 Appeal

The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee dismissed appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that arbitrator's finding was based upon the proper appreciation and interpretation of the prevalent conditions and the site inspection along with the documents on record. Brief Facts: The...

Application Under Section 29A A&C Can Be Allowed Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be allowed even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. Section 29A deals with the time limit for arbitral award. It specifies that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the...

Arbitration Act | When Parties Engage In Constant Communication, Unjust To Dismiss Claim Solely On Grounds Of Being Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that it would be an unnatural construction of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where a party with a bona fide and a genuine claim is left in the lurch on the defence of the claim being barred by limitation. It held that when parties engage in constant communication for the settlement of...

Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible Under Arbitration Act And Negotiable Instruments Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Anil B Katti held that simultaneous proceedings can be carried on under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench further held that a party cannot be acquitted solely on the basis of presence of an arbitration agreement. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to M/s....

Condonation Of Delay Re- Filing S. 34, A&C Act Application Must Be Allowed If Delay Is Procedural And Curable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that not every defect leads to the dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and took a liberal approach for condonation of delay. It held that defects were not fundamental in nature and could be termed as curable or procedural. Brief Facts: The Petitioner...

Section 47 Of The CPC Does Not Apply To Proceedings For Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award. The bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however,...

Notice For Appointment Of Arbitrator Need Not Be Addressed To General Manager, Registered Post To Railways Fulfils The Condition: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that notice for appointment of an Arbitrator was not necessarily required to be addressed to the General Manager of the Railways. Notice to invoke arbitration was said to be fulfilled as it was sent by a registered post to the Railways. Brief Facts: Northern Railway (“Respondent”) floated a tender...

Questions Of Agreement Implications And Legal Provisions Need To Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 A&C Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited...

Parties Not Signatories To Joint Venture Agreement Cannot Be Forced To Arbitration Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice M G Uma held that the parties not signatories to the Joint Venture Agreement, stipulating the arbitration clause, cannot be forced to arbitration proceedings. Brief Facts: The Platintiff approached the Karnataka High Court (“High Court”) and filed a writ of certiorari to annul the order to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator...

Enforcement Of Foreign Award Must Be Refused Only Rarely, International Standards To Be Applied To Determine Bias : Supreme Court

In a crucial judgment, while allowing the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the Supreme Court (on March 04), held that to determine the factor of arbitral bias, Court must endeavour to follow international standards than domestic ones. It is only in exceptional circumstances that enforcement of a foreign should be refused on the ground of bias., the Court said."Embracing...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 18th March to 24th March 2024

Supreme Court General Reference Won't Have Effect Of Incorporating Arbitration Clause In Another Contract, Specific Reference Needed : Supreme Court Case Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 246 The Supreme Court reiterated that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained...