A Court Cannot Condone The Delay In Filing Of The Petition Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Beyond 120 Days: Gauhati High Court Reiterates

The Gauhati High Court has held that a Court cannot condone the delay in the filing of the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act beyond 120 days.The bench of Justice Malasri Nandi held that the Court cannot condone the delay beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 34(3) of the Act i.e. 3 months+ 30 days. It held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to...

Delhi High Court Lays Down Twin Test For Exercising Power Of Attachment Before Passing Arbitral Award

The Delhi High Court has ruled that though the power to pass an attachment order before an award is rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal may not have been specifically set out in Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), however, such an order could be made if the circumstances so warrant.However, the bench of Justice Yashwant Varma remarked that the said...

Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act Would Not Apply To An Arbitration That Commenced Before The 2015 Amendment: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, which provides for ineligibility of a person to act as an arbitrator whose appointment falls under any categories mentioned under the Seventh Schedule to the Act, would not apply to an arbitration that commenced before the 2015 Amendment.The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the 2015 Amendment that added...

Award Passed By A Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is A Nullity, Cannot Be Enforced Under Section 36 Of The A&C Act: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that an arbitration award passed by an arbitrator who was unilaterally appointed by one of the parties cannot be executed under Section 36 of the A&C Act.The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that a unilaterally appointed award does not carry the privilege of existence in the eyes of the law and is regarded as a nullity, therefore, there is nothing...

Arbitration | Section 34 Application Must Be Filed Within 90 Days Limitation To Claim Exclusion Of Period When Court Remain Closed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed within “prescribed period” of limitation i.e. 90 days, for seeking benefit of exclusion of period during which the Court remained closed from computation of limitation period. If the application is filed by invoking Proviso to Section 34(3) of Arbitration Act, which...

Limited Scrutiny of Court Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act Through The “Eye Of The Needle”, Is Necessary And Compelling: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is not expected to act mechanically, and that the limited scrutiny of the court at the pre-reference stage, through the “eye of the needle”, is necessary and compelling.The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice...

Arbitration- Limitation Starts From Failure Of Settlement Talks: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that the period of limitation will only begin to run when the talks of amicable settlement between the parties fail.The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the period of limitation for referring a dispute to arbitration would be calculated from the date of the breaking point i.e., the date of failure of settlement talks, when the parties were trying...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: April 02 To April 08, 2023

Bombay High Court: Limited Remedy Available Under S. 34 Of A&C Act Against Award Of Compensation Under NHA, Is Not A Ground To Invoke HC’s Writ Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Case Title: M/s Omanand Industries & Anr. vs The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways The Bombay High Court has ruled that though the scope for...

Once Civil Suit Has Been Disposed Of By Referring Parties To Arbitration Under S. 89 Of CPC, The Suit Can’t Be Revived: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that once the court has disposed of a civil suit and referred the parties to arbitration in an application filed by it under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and has appointed an arbitrator with the written consent of both the parties, the suit cannot be revived. The Court rejected the argument of the petitioner/ claimant that...

Deliberate Departure From Terms Of Contract May Tantamount To A Malafide Action By Arbitrator: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the arbitrator derives authority from the contract and thus, the award passed by him in manifest disregard to the terms of the contract would be arbitrary in nature. The bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary remarked that deliberate departure from the contract amounts not only to manifest disregard of its authority or misconduct on the part...

Facilitation Council Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Arbitrate Claims After The Supplier’s Registration Under The MSMED Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the date of execution of a contract between a buyer and a supplier under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) is irrelevant for the application of the provisions of the said Act. The Facilitation Council would have exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the reference, and to take up the dispute/ refer the same...

Location Of Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Would Remain The ‘Venue’ Of Arbitration When The Agreement Confers Jurisdiction On The Courts In A Different Place: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the location of the Facilitation Council administering arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 would remain the ‘Venue’ of arbitration when the parties have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a Court situated in a different place. The bench of Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Anoop Jairam Bhambhani held that by virtue of the...