All The Members Of A ‘Joint Venture’ Are Jointly And Severally Liable To Third Parties; No Need To Separately Make Individual Members A Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that all the members of a ‘joint venture (JV)’ are jointly and severally liable to the third parties with which the JV enters into an agreement. The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that a JV is a quasi-partnership wherein two or more entities may come together and jointly undertake a particular transaction or contract for mutual profit. It held...

Section 34 Arbitration Petition Filed In Anticipation Of Approval By Authority Not Valid : Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act is not a valid filing if it is filed without or in anticipation of the final approval. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a petition by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenging an arbitration award passed against it, however, admittedly the petition was filed by...

Arbitrator Must Serve Sufficient Notice Before Proceeding Ex-Parte Against Party: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has set aside an ex-parte Arbitral Award on the ground that the Arbitrator failed to issue proper communication to the party before proceeding ex-parte against it and that it failed to make adequate efforts to examine whether the absence of the party was with or without showing sufficient cause. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that under the...

Delhi High Court Restrains Invocation of Bank Guarantee Since Party Had Arbitral Awards In Its Favour Under Contract

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the existence of any dispute between the parties to the contract is not a ground for issuing an injunction to restrain the enforcement of an unconditional bank guarantee. The Court was dealing with a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking to restrain the opposite party from invoking/ encashing...

Former CJI Justice N.V. Ramana Appointed As Arbitrator In Dispute Between DMRC And Arvind Techno Globe

The Delhi High Court has referred the disputes between the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (DMRC) and M/s Arvind Techno Globe (JV) in relation to a construction contract to arbitration, appointing Justice N.V. Ramana, former Chief Justice of India, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was dealing with a...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: February 26 To March 4, 2023

Bombay High Court: Clause Captioned As “Arbitration”, Doesn’t Conclusively Imply Mandatory Nature Of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Case Title: Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt Ltd vs. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd The Bombay High Court has ruled that the use of the word ‘can’ in the relevant clause has the effect of qualifying Arbitration as a mode of settlement, and...

Arbitration Clause Can Be Invoked By Assignee Of Rights Under Contract: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that an arbitration agreement is assignable, just as any other contract, and where the obligations and rights under an Agreement, containing an arbitration clause, are assigned in favour of an assignee, the remedy of arbitration would also stand assigned in its favour. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that there was no need of separate execution...

Delhi High Court Refers Claims Against Essel Group Companies under ‘Letters Of Comfort’ To Arbitration

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the statements made by a party in a ‘Letter of Comfort’, assuring the creditor that it shall ensure that the debtor repays the loan on the relevant due dates, are promissory in character and thus enforceable, even if they do not meet the requirement of Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the Contract of Guarantee. The...

Clause Captioned As “Arbitration”, Doesn’t Conclusively Imply Mandatory Nature Of Arbitration: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the use of the word ‘can’ in the relevant clause has the effect of qualifying Arbitration as a mode of settlement, and the mere fact that a particular clause is captioned as “Arbitration”, does not conclusively imply the mandatory nature of arbitration when the option is left to the parties to settle their disputes through the mode...

Award Passed By Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is Void; Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that arbitral proceedings conducted by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator are void ab initio and the consequent award is non-est. The bench of Justice Jyotsana Rewal Dua held that an arbitration award passed by a unilaterally appointed sole arbitrator is not enforceable under Section 36 of the A&C Act. The Court further held that...

Court Has Almost “Nil” Scope Of Interference Against Order Disposing Of S. 34 Petition Under Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that, as a necessary corollary of the provisions of Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), what cannot be considered by the adjudicating Court under a Section 34 petition can certainly not be adjudicated upon by the appellate Court under Section 37. The Court added that it has almost “Nil” scope...

Reference To Wrong Agreement in Arbitration Notice, Not Invalid If Agreement Otherwise Exists: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere reference to a wrong provision or term of the agreement cannot invalidate the notice invoking arbitration, if otherwise such power or provision exists in the document executed between the parties. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla was dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C...