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...

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

The Bombay High Court has ruled that though the scope for challenging the compensation awarded by the Arbitrator to the landowners under Section 3-G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHA) is limited to the parameters provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act), the same cannot be a ground to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction...

Arbitral Tribunal’s Order Rejecting The Application For Impleadment Of Party Doesn’t Constitute An ‘Interim Award’: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a party who is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, can be impleaded as a necessary party in the arbitration proceedings. The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain further ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal’s order rejecting the application for impleadment of parties in the arbitral proceedings, does not constitute...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: March 2023

High Courts Allahabad High Court: When Arbitration Clause Covers All The Disputes, Jurisdiction Can’t Be Limited To A Particular Dispute: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Agra Development Authority Agra vs. M/s Baba Construction Pvt Ltd The High Court of Allahabad has held that when the arbitration clause covers all the disputes arising out of the contract within its ambit then...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: March 26 To April 01, 2023

Allahabad High Court: When Arbitration Clause Covers All The Disputes, Jurisdiction Can’t Be Limited To A Particular Dispute: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Agra Development Authority Agra vs. M/s Baba Construction Pvt Ltd The High Court of Allahabad has held that when the arbitration clause covers all the disputes arising out of the contract within its ambit then the scope...

Court May Decline To Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Doesn’t Correlate To Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere existence of an arbitration agreement or arbitration clause would not be sufficient to refer the parties to arbitration and that even in the presence of an arbitration agreement, the court may decline to refer the parties to arbitration if the dispute does not correlate to the said agreement. While dealing with a petition filed under...