Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Arbitral Award And Re-Examine The Merits: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Section 34 A&C Appeal

The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that Court cannot sit in appeal over the arbitral award and re-examine the merits. It held that it is not permissible for a court to reappreciate the evidence on record.Further, it held that the arbitral award cannot be interfered with where on interpretation of any contract or document,...

Parliament Should Consider Amending Arbitration Act To Prescribe Limitation Period To File S.11 Application : Supreme Court

In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court delved into the crucial question of whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to applications for the appointment of arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court highlighted the absence of a statutory prescription regarding the time limit for such applications and expressed concerns about the unduly...

Arbitrator Need Not To Be Technical In Nature, Within Power To Decide Matter On Basis Of Material On Record: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral proceedings before the arbitrator are not required to be technical in nature and the arbitrator is within its power to decide the same on the basis of material on record. The bench held that the arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality and quantity of evidence, and the court's role is not to reassess...

Section 29A Not Applicable To Arbitration Proceedings Commenced Before 2015: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which prescribes a time limit for issuance of arbitral award is not applicable to arbitration proceedings commenced before 2015 Amendment Act. It held that arbitral proceedings commence on the date when the Respondent receives the request for reference to...

Party Fails To Challenge Arbitral Award U/s 34 A&C Cannot Approach High Court Under Article 226: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be invoked where a party has failed to invoke other remedies available to it under law. It held that if a party fails to challenge the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot approach the...

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

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse to make a reference if the claims, on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, are ex-facie barred."...there is no doubt as to the applicability...

MSME Facilitation Council Can't Arbitrate Matters Pertaining To Individual Service Providers Outside The Scope Of MSME Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the MSME Facilitation Council does not have the jurisdiction to arbitrate matters pertaining to individual service providers who do not fall under the definition of 'supplier' under the MSME Act. The same would be violative of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts:The matter pertained to...

Even If Arbitral Award Set Aside For Non-Compliance With Section 12, Parties Can File Fresh Section 11 Application For Arbitrator Appointment: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that mere invalidation or unenforceability of the arbitrator appointment process does not render the entire arbitration clause void. The bench held that even if an arbitration award is set aside due to unilateral appointment and non-compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, fundamental agreement between the parties...

S.29A Arbitration Act | Who Has Power To Hear Time Extension Application When Arbitrator Appointed By SC/HC/Parties? Allahabad HC Refers Question To Larger Bench

The Allahabad High Court has referred the question whether application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for time extension can only be heard by the Supreme Court or the High Court where the appointment of such arbitrator has been made by the Supreme Court or the High Court, as the case may be.Further, the Court has raised a query regarding the powers of the...

Application Under Section 29(A) A&C Act Doesn't Constitute Express Waiver In Writing U/s 12(5) To Challenge Arbitrator's Ineligibility: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that filing of the Section 29(A) application by a party did not amount to a waiver of its right to challenge the arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that filing an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act for an extension of the mandate...

Party Providing Wrong Address During Proceedings Cannot Argue Incorrect Arbitration Notice U/s 21 A&C: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Rekha Palli held that when a party provides its incorrect address in proceedings cannot be permitted to urge that the invocation notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not served at the correct address. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court (“High Court”)...

Court Cannot Determine Admissibility, Relevancy, Materiality, And Weight Of Any Evidence Under Section 27 of A&C: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the court under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot determine the admissibility, relevancy, materiality, and weight of any evidence, as doing so would amount to impermissible interference with the Tribunal's proceedings. Brief Facts: Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (“Petitioner”)...