Arbitration
Pendency Of Conciliation Proceedings Before Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Doesn’t Debar The Court From Appointing Arbitrator Under S. 11 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that a prior reference to the Facilitation Council under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), which is still at the stage of conciliation, does not debar the Court from passing an order under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for appointment of arbitrator on the...
Agreement Is Linked With Family Settlement Which Contains Arbitration Clause - Delhi High Court Allows S. 8 Application To Refer Parties to Arbitration
The Delhi High Court has ruled that once there is an arbitration agreement governing the parties, the matter must be referred for arbitration unless there is a “chalk and cheese” case of non-arbitrability. The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh was dealing with an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) in a suit for...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: April 16 To April 22, 2023
Supreme Court: Supreme Court Deprecates Practice Of Filing Applications In Disposed Of SLPs To Side-Step Arbitration Process Case Title: Narsi Creation Pvt Ltd and Anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. The Supreme Court has reiterated that the courts normally ought not interfere with arbitral proceedings, especially till the time an award is not passed. The top...
Whether A Signed Copy Or Certified Copy Of The Award, Purpose Of S. 31(5) of A&C Act Is To Inform The Party: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the purpose of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), which provides for delivery of the signed copy of the arbitral award, is of imparting knowledge to the party regarding the contents of the award, and to make the party aware that the limitation to raise a challenge has started to run. The court held that the...
Delhi High Court Invokes “Direct Benefits” And “Intertwined” Estoppel Theory To Refer Non-Signatory To Arbitration
The Delhi High Court has invoked the “direct benefits” estoppel theory and the “intertwined estoppel theory” to refer a non-signatory to arbitration. While referring the builder/developer (non-signatory) of a building to arbitration in a dispute between the owner of the flat and the maintenance agency under the ‘maintenance agreement’, the court observed that its...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: April 9 To April 15, 2023
Supreme Court:Limited Scrutiny of Court Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act Through The “Eye Of The Needle”, Is Necessary And Compelling: Supreme CourtCase Title: NTPC Ltd vs M/s SPML Infra LtdThe 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...
Appeal Against Dismissal Of S. 8 Application Filed Before Commencement Of 2015 Arbitration Amendment Act, Not Maintainable: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the amendment incorporated in Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, which provides for an appeal against an order of the court refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8, is prospective in nature. Thus, the same will apply...
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...