Contract To Refer Disputes To Director Of Social Forestry Department Whose Finding Is Final And Binding Constitutes Valid Arbitration Agreement: J&K High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court held that a contract to refer disputes to the Director of the Social Forestry Department, whose findings would be final and binding constituted a valid arbitration agreement. “A perusal of the said Clause 18, would show that it does not specifically mention that the dispute between the parties shall be referred to an arbitrator. What...

Technical Difficulties Shouldn't Thwart Objectives Of Arbitral Proceeding: Bombay High Court Allows Petition For Replacement Of Arbitrator

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Bharti Dangre held although there might be an impression that with the legal termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate upon the expiration of one year from the reference entry, as per Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 there might be a technical difficulty. However, it held that such technicalities should not thwart...

A&C | Allahabad High Court Set Aside Section 34 Order, District Judge Failed To Take Into Consideration When Appellant Received Signed Award Copy

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf set aside an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by the District Judge, noting that the judge failed to give due consideration to Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. Since the limitation period for Section 34 commences upon...

Limitation Act | Doesn't Encompass Long Delays, Condonation Only In Exceptional Cases: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Section 37 A&C Petition

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not encompass long delays, and condonation can only be granted in exceptional cases where the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently. The bench dismissed an appeal filed after a delay of four years. Brief Facts: The Appellant filed an...

After Final Settlement Of Arbitration Award Is Acknowledged, Claims Of Under Influence And Coercion Can't Be Raised: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that once an arbitration award has been acknowledged to be fully and finally settled by both the parties, it cannot be challenged on the basis of one-sided nature of the arbitration agreement. “The learned Arbitrator noted that the claimant had not reserved any other liberty and had not withdrawn the consent...

For Unconditional Stay Of Arbitral Award, Prima Facie Case Of Fraud With Substantial Impact On Outcome On Arbitration Proceedings: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that for an unconditional stay of an arbitral award on pretext of fraud, there should prima facie case of fraud which should be evident on the face of the record without the necessity of a detailed or through examination. The bench held that fraud must be evident and reprehensible, with a substantial impact on...

Time-Barred Claims Must Not Be Entertained, Doing So Would Perpetuate Injustice Than Serving Justice: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that claims that are clearly time-barred must not be entertained, as doing so would perpetuate injustice rather than serving justice. The High Court held that even the slightest doubt regarding the timeliness of a claim warrants its referral to arbitration, as interfering in such matters would encroach upon the...

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Be Faulted For Disallowing Additional Evidence At The Fag End Especially When The Document Was Already In Possession Of The Party: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral tribunal cannot be faulted for disallowing additional evidence at the fag end especially when the document was already in possession of the party. The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan also held that arbitral tribunal is not strictly bound by the Indian Evidence Act. Facts The respondent, an importer and distributor of mobile...

Arbitration Act | 'Court' Under Section 29A Takes Character Of Appointing Authority Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the word “Court” in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator takes the character of the appointing authority under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, it held that can only be the Court which has the power to appoint an arbitrator...

MSMED Act | No Bar In 'filing' Petition Under Section 34 A&C Without Pre-deposit of 75% Award Amount, but Will Not Be 'Entertained' Without Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that there is no bar in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same can be filed without pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. However, the bench held that the petition will not be “entertained”...

Appointment Of Arbitrators From Panel Of Serving/Retired Railway Officials Contravenes Section 12(5) & 7th Schedule: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that panel/appointment of the serving/retired officials of the Railways, as members of the Arbitral Tribunal, is hit by Section 12(5) and the 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. “When the General Manager, N.F. Railway himself cannot be made an Arbitrator in view of Section 12(5) and the...

Challenge Of Compensation Under National Highways Act, 1956 Fall Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court single bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that determination of compensation under National Highways Act, 1956 can be challenged before the arbitrator appointment by the Central Government. The bench held that challenges to such determination fall under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The Appellant approached the Rajasthan...