Arbitration
Limitation Period For Arbitration | Mere Negotiations Between Parties Will Not Postpone The Cause Of Action : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court while adjudicating an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, has held that the limitation period of three years for filing such application would commence from the date when the cause of action arose. Subsequent negotiations between the parties, which take place after the cause of action has arisen,...
Agreement Providing For Exclusive Appointment Of Party’s Nominee As Arbitrator, Conditional Acceptance; A Case Of Non-Survival Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled where the Arbitration Agreement unambiguously provides that in case the stipulated person cannot act as an Arbitrator, the dispute is not to be referred to Arbitration at all, the same reflected the conditional acceptance of Arbitration by the party.The bench of Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with an arbitration clause in a petition filed under Section 11 of...
Delay In Resuming The Arbitration Proceedings Will Not Make The Claim Time Barred: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that once the arbitral proceedings have been commenced pursuant to reference under Section 21 of the Act, any delay in the conclusion/resumption of the such proceedings would not wipe out the arbitral reference. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that arbitral proceedings cannot be rendered inoperative for the reason that there was some delay in...
Arbitration: Courts Should Not Grant Injunction In Public Work Projects; Delhi High Court Reiterates Law
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of Sections 20A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), the courts should grant no injunction relating to infrastructure projects where delay may be caused by such an injunction.The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking...
Limitation Period For Arbitration | Cause Of Action To Appoint Arbitrator Commences From The “Breaking Point” Between Parties : Supreme Court
The 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 arriving at a settlement and contemplate referral of the dispute for arbitration. “Breaking Point” should be treated as the date at which the cause of action arose for the purpose of limitation.The Bench...
Reasons For Bias Do Not Fall Under VII Schedule Of A&C Act , Petition Is Abuse Of Process Of Court : Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitrator can be removed under Section 14(1)(a) which provides for de jure ineligibility of arbitrator only if his appointment falls within the grounds mentioned under the VII Schedule. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the mandate of the arbitrator on grounds of bias and prejudice cannot be terminated if the test of the...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 14 To 20 May, 2023
Supreme Court: Referral Court Has Duty To Conclusively Decide Issue Of ‘Existence & Validity Of Arbitration Agreement’ Raised At Pre-Referral Stage: Supreme Court Case Title: Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The Supreme Court has held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the...
Arbitral Award Passed After Inordinate, Unexplained Delay Is Contrary To Justice and Public Policy : Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral award passed after an inordinate, substantial and unexplained delay would be “contrary to justice and would defeat justice”. Consequently, the same would also be in conflict with the public policy of India. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was hearing a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and...
Arbitration: Calcutta High Court Allows S. 11 Application Being Consolidated Claim Under Different Purchase Orders Linked To A Single Main Contract
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a single composite invocation of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), pertaining to a consolidated claim arising out of three different Purchase Orders, containing separate arbitration clauses, cannot be labelled as invalid or unlawful. The court made the observation while noting that...
Orissa High Court Allows Writ Petition Against Arbitrator’s Order Directing Evaluation Of Assets, Being Expansion Of Scope Of Reference
The Orissa High Court has set aside the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), where the Tribunal had directed the appointment of an expert evaluator for evaluating the assets of the counter-claimant in the arbitral proceedings involving money claims. While noting that the claims and counter claims raised by...
Issues Falling Within The Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Estate Officer Under The Public Premises Act, Are Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the disputes relating to determination of a lease or the arrears of rent payable in respect of public premises, are questions statutorily mandated to be determined exclusively by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act). Thus, the same are non-arbitrable. The bench of Justice...