MSEF Council’s Order Without Following Due Procedure Can’t Be Termed As Award: Madras High Court

The High Court of Madras has held that an order passed by the MSEF Council without issuing notice of arbitration, opportunity to parties file their pleadings and recording evidence as per the provisions of A&C Act cannot be termed as award. The bench of Justice S. Sounthar held that since such an order is not an award, it need not be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act...

Court Exercising Powers Under Section 9 Of A&C Act Is Not Bound To Strictly Follow Provisions Of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 Of CPC: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act is not strictly bound by the provisions of interim relief contained under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattarcharya held that unlike O. XXXVIII R. 5 of CPC wherein the party seeking relief has to discharge the onus of showing that the other party...

Party Eligible For Interim Protection U/S 9(1) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Regressive To Relegate To CPC Procedure: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed applications for appointment of arbitrator u/s 11 and for interim protection u/s 9(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) by Prathyusha- AMR, a Joint Venture. In allowing the plea for appointment of an arbitrator u/s 11 of the Act, a single-bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya noted that “a turning point” in...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 25th September To 1st October

Supreme Court: Contractor Claiming Loss Of Profits Due To Delayed Execution Must Prove That Other Works Were Lost Due To Delay: Supreme Court Case Title: Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Anr. The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, has held that in arbitral proceedings where the execution...

Application Seeking Extension Of Time, Can It Be Moved After Expiry Of Mandate Of Arbitrator ? Delhi High Court To Examine

The High Court of Delhi is set to examine an important issue regarding the extension of time for the delivery of the arbitral award. The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna would decide the issue that whether an application ought to be moved by the parties under Section 29A(4) during the course of mandate of the learned arbitrator or can be moved even late. The Court was hearing...

Arbitrator Appointed Under The Provisions Of National Highways Act Is Bound By Section 29A Of The A&C Act, Award Must Be Delivered Without Undue Delay: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 is bound to deliver an arbitral award within the time limit prescribed under Section 29A of the A&C Act. Section 29A of the A&C Act provides that an arbitrator must make an arbitral award within a period of 12 months from the date of completion of...

Widening And Improvement Of An Existing Road Would Be A ‘Bypass’ When Such Improvement Diverts Traffic From Project Road Resulting In Loss Of Toll Revenue: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that development, improvement, widening and construction over an existing narrow highway would be considered to be a ‘bypass’ when such improvement makes the road viable for heavy vehicles and becomes an alternate road, resulting in reduction of the traffic from the project highway, affecting the toll revenue. The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar...

Bank Guarantee Expired During The Stay Period, Must Be Renewed Once The Order Granting Stay Is Vacated Due To Withdrawal Of Petition: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that Bank Guarantee expired during the stay period, must be renewed once the order granting stay is vacated due to withdrawal of petition. The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that principle of restitution demands that the party, who had received the benefit of an order should make restitution to the other party for what he had lost, if...

Accrual Of Cause Of Action At A Place Is Not A Consideration For Determining Jurisdiction For The Purpose Of Section 11 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the accrual of cause of action at a place for pursuing a substantive legal action is not a consideration for determining jurisdiction for the purposes of Section 11 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reiterated that the place of arbitration would be the seat of arbitration when there is no contrary indicia present in the...

Contractor Claiming Loss Of Profits Due To Delayed Execution Must Prove That Other Works Were Lost Due To Delay : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, has held that in arbitral proceedings where the execution of a contract is delayed and the Contractor claims loss arising from depletion of income, then the Contractor must prove that there was alternative work available for him/her by placing on record invitation to tender, which were rejected by the...

Right Of Pledgee To Sell Pledged Shares Is Subservient To The Pledgor’s Right To Redeem Such Shares: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the right of the pledgee to sell the pledged shares for default to repay the loan amount is subservient to the right of the pledgor to redeem such shares under Section 177 of Indian Contract Act. The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the pledged shares cannot be sold by the pledgee without deciding on the offer made by the pledgor to...

Unstamped Agreement, Quantum Not Disputed, Court Can Collect While Deciding Section 11 Petition: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act can itself determine and collect the unpaid or deficit stamp duty payable upon the unstamped or insufficiently stamped agreement. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale relied upon the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Spendor Landbase v. Aparna Ashram Society[1] to hold that...