‘Partial Reduction In Traffic’ Due To Remote Event Of Flood Is Not A Force Majeure Event, Delhi High Court Sets Aside The Award Against NHAI

The Delhi High Court has held that ‘partial reduction in traffic’ due to a remote event of flood is not a force majeure event. The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that force majeure event contemplates a complete blockade of the road due to the floods and not mere reduction of the traffic on a particular road. The Court set aside an arbitration award passed against NHAI on the...

‘Balance Rent’ During The Lock-In Period Is A Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, Requires No Further Of Actual Loss: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has upheld an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator held that the ‘Balance Rent’ during the lock-in period is a genuine pre-estimate of loss which requires no further proof of loss. The bench of Justice V. Kameshwar Rao held that when the contract provides for payment of entire balance rent for the lock-in period if the deed is terminated before the expiry of...

The Expression “Any” Member of Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Be Read As “All Members”: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the expression “any member” contained in a clause that lays down a mandatory qualification to be appointed as arbitrator, cannot be read as “all members” of the Arbitral Tribunal. The court said that the phrase “any member” must be interpreted in the context in which it is used.The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with an...

Restrictive Clauses V. Law Of Limitation: Can The Right To Arbitration Be Restricted To A Lesser Period Than Provided Under The Limitation Act?

It is not uncommon for arbitration practitioners to come across agreements, the provisions of which are lop-sided and designed to favour the dominant party or the employer. These clauses are almost non-negotiated and one party is often made to sign on the dotted lines. These may inter alia include clauses like the requirement of mandatory pre-arbitration deposit,[1] unilateral option clauses,[2] unilateral appointment clauses,[3] clauses restricting the right to nominate an arbitrator from a...

Third Party Funders In Arbitration Play A Vital Role In Ensuring Access To Justice; Arbitral Award Cannot Be Enforced Against Them: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a third-party funder, i.e., a non-signatory to arbitration agreement, who is not a party to the arbitral proceedings or the award, cannot be held liable for the awarded amount merely because it has funded a party in arbitral proceedings.The court dismissed the contention that third-party funders must be held liable for funding impecunious persons who...

Spicejet Should Pay Entire Arbitral Award Of Rs 380 Crore To Its Former Promotor Kalanithi Maran: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has directed SpiceJet to pay the entire arbitral award of Rs. 380 crore to the airline’s former promotor, Kalanithi Maran, and his firm, Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd, in an execution petition filed by Maran seeking enforcement of a 2018 arbitral award passed in his favour.The court has also directed the airline to file an Affidavit of its assets within the specified time...

Power Of Arbitrator To Resolve Dispute In A Partnership Flows From Clauses Of Partnership Deed: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that in a partnership deed that provides for appointment of Arbitrator, the power of Arbitrator to resolve the dispute flows from the clauses of the partnership deed.A Single Judge bench of Justice S G Pandit, dismissed a petition filed by one Jameela who claimed to be the second wife of deceased partner Hajee Ibrahim and sought dissolution of the...

Clause Prohibiting Payment Of Interest On Delayed Payments, Doesn’t Prohibit Arbitrator From Granting Interest Under S. 31(7) Of The Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a clause in a contract that prohibits payment of interest on delayed payments, does not prohibit the arbitrator from granting interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the said stipulation only puts a restriction on the contracting party to claim interest on...

Insurance Policy Is To Be Referred To Arbitration When Only One Head Of The Claims Is Disputed And Not The Entire Liability: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that ordinarily the dispute under insurance policy claims would not be referred to arbitration when the reference is limited to quantum of compensation and the insurer disputes liability.The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan distinguished between a situation wherein the insurer denied the entire liability and where the entire liability is not disputed but only...

Arbitration Between Co-op Society and Member, Governed By S. 85(1) of the MSCS Act and Not Limitation Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the limitation period for reference of money dispute between the cooperative society and its defaulting member to arbitration, would be determined as per the provisions of Section 85(1)(a) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), and not as per the Limitation Act, 1963.The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Girish Kathpalia...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 21 To 27 May, 2023

Supreme Court:Limitation Period For Arbitration | Cause Of Action To Appoint Arbitrator Commences From The “Breaking Point” Between Parties : Supreme CourtCase Title: M/s B and T AG vs Ministry of DefenceThe Supreme Court has held that the cause of action to appoint an arbitrator would commence from the “Breaking Point” at which any reasonable party would abandon efforts for at...

Non-Signatory Defendants Cannot Be Exposed To Arbitration Under Section 8 Of The A&C Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the non-signatory defendants cannot be exposed to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act by allowing the dispute to be referred to arbitration.The bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar held that when the cause of action against all the defendants is stated to be the same, it cannot be bifurcated so to allow arbitration proceedings against few...