Arbitration
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...
Non Filing Of Arbitral Award Along Section 34 Is A Fatal Defect, Makes Filing Non-Est: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that non filing of the arbitral award along with the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a fatal defect, making such filing as non-est. The bench held that the absence of a copy of the award renders it impossible to appreciate the grounds for seeking to set aside the...
Allegations Of Fraud, Misappropriation With No Public Implication Doesn't Make Dispute Non-Arbitrable: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal held that the High Court noted that allegations in criminal proceedings regarding fraud and misappropriation of funds, being inter se parties and having no public implications, do not make the dispute non-arbitrable. Brief Facts: The matter revolved around the partnership firm M/s. Om Polyplast, through a...
Delhi High Court Imposes Costs Of Rs.1 Lakh On Indian Oil For Taking Inconsistent Stance In Section 34 A&C Petition
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan set aside an arbitral award noting that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited failed to present evidence before the Arbitrator, thereby, making it impossible to adjudicate the contention raised regarding payment of dues. The bench imposed a substantial costs of Rs.1 lakh on the Indian Oil for taking unjustifiable contrary stands...
Multiple Arbitration Before Different Arbitral Tribunals Is Counterproductive And Should Be Avoided: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh held that multiple arbitrations before different Arbitral Tribunals in respect of the same contract is counterproductive and ought to be avoided. The bench held that it is incumbent on the parties to disclose such information to the court when approaching for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of...
Expert Committee On Arbitration Law Proposes Complete Overhaul Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
The Expert Committee on Arbitration Law, formed on June 12, 2023, to assess the functionality of the Arbitration Law in the country and propose reforms to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, has released its long-awaited report. Key highlights of the report include a comprehensive analysis of the current arbitration law, detailed recommendations for reform, and the presentation...
Section 42 A&C | Delhi High Court Terminates Arbitrator's Mandate Who Disclosed Award Prematurely To Party During Proceedings
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh terminated mandate of an arbitrator who disclosed the award prematurely and revealed details about several claims during the hearing of the arbitral proceedings to the party. The bench held that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates for strictest confidentiality in arbitration proceedings and the...
Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 26th February to 3rd March 2024
Supreme Court Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred : Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023 In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of...
Arbitration Monthly Round Up: February 2024
Supreme Court Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred : Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023 In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of...
Designation Of Seat Of Arbitration Akin To An Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11 Application
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that designation of a seat of arbitration is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. It emphasized that in an agreement featuring distinct forum selection and seat clauses, the clause designating the seat takes precedence and assumes pre-eminence.Brief Facts:The matter pertained to disputes arising from a "Management...
Mere Reference To Another Agreement Having Arbitration Clause Does Not Automatically Incorporate It Into Subsequent Contract: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held that arbitration cannot be binding on parties unless the terms and conditions of the referenced agreement, which includes an arbitration clause, are explicitly incorporated into the new contract. Brief Facts:The matter pertained to a contractual agreement between the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC)...
Counterclaims Can Be Enforced Under Section 36 Of The A&C Act If The Part Of Award Favouring Judgment-Debtor Is Set Aside: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that the counterclaims allowed by the arbitral tribunal can be enforced under Section 36 of the A&C Act when the portion of the award granting larger sums to the judgment-debtor (claimant in the arbitration) is set aside.The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated that partial setting aside of an award is permissible under the Act, therefore, when the...