Arbitration
When Arbitration Clause Covers All The Disputes, Jurisdiction Can’t Be Limited To A Particular Dispute: Allahabad High Court
The High Court of Allahabad has held that when the arbitration clause cover all the dispute arising out of the contract within its ambit then the scope of the arbitrator cannot be limited to decide only a particular dispute. The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta held that all the disputes that have arisen before the appointment of the arbitrator can be referred to...
‘Updation Application’ Seeking To Change The Amount Of Counter-Claims In Arbitral Proceedings, Is An Application For ‘Amendment’: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a party has filed an application seeking to update/revise its counter claims before the Arbitral Tribunal, intending to primarily alter/change the amount of the counter-claims, the said application was, in effect, an application for amendment of the counter-claims, even though it was termed as an ‘updation application’. The bench of Justice...
Weekly Update Of IBC Cases: 20 To 26 March 2023
Supreme Court IBC- Once Resolution Plan Is Approved, No Modifications Are Permissible: Supreme Court Case Title: SREI Multiple Asset Investment Trust Vision India Fund v Deccan Chronicle Marketeers & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 231 The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, has held that the declaration made by the NCLT to...
Arbitrator Can’t Apply Principles Of Equity In Absence of Authorization of Parties: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has reiterated that the doctrine of severability can apply to arbitral awards, so long as the objectionable part can be segregated. The Court added that if the award is partially set aside by applying the doctrine of severability, the same would not amount to modification or correction of the errors of the arbitrator. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale...
Recourse To Section 34(4) Of The A&C Act Can’t Be Opted For Consideration Of New Material Evidence: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that recourse to Section 34(4) of the A&C Act cannot be taken to permit the arbitral tribunal to consider the material evidence which it earlier failed to consider. The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that Section 34(4) of the A&C Act empowers the Court deciding an application under Section 34(1) of the Act to adjourn the challenge...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: March 19 To March 25, 2023
Bombay High Court: Not Necessary For Party To Raise Objection Regarding Unilateral Appointment Before The Arbitrator, Can Be Raised In S. 34 Petition: Bombay High Court Case Title: Hanuman Motors Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs. M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd The Bombay High Court has ruled that when one of the parties to the dispute has an overwhelming and unilateral power to appoint a...
Not Necessary For Party To Raise Objection Regarding Unilateral Appointment Before The Arbitrator, Can Be Raised In S. 34 Petition: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that when one of the parties to the dispute has an overwhelming and unilateral power to appoint a Sole Arbitrator, the same completely vitiates such an appointment as the same is hit by Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). While dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the...
Arbitrator Under The National Highways Act Has To Give An Award Within 1 Year, Failure Can Result In Termination Of The Mandate: HP High Court
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held that the arbitration proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 are governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, thus, the arbitrator so appointed by the Central Government under Section 3G(a) of the National Highways Act is bound to follow the provisions of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja held that...
Party Can’t Restrict Limitation Period For Invoking Arbitration Contrary To Limitation Act : Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that, in view of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a party cannot be permitted to restrict the period of limitation for invoking arbitration, in contravention to the limitation period provided by law. The Court observed that a lesser period of limitation provided under the Contract between the parties would be hit by Section 28. While dealing...
Airport Metro Arbitral Award: DMRC Seeks Review Of High Court Ruling, Says Attachment Of Statutory Expenses Will Cause Chaos On Delhi Roads
Seeking a review of Delhi High Court's recent decision on the execution petition filed by Reliance Infra-promoted Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) has told the court that the attachment of its statutory expenses will result in immediate stoppage of the entire metro network in National Capital Region and cause inconvenience to more...
Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Has No Jurisdiction To Conduct Arbitration Dispute Arising Under A Works Contract: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has set aside an arbitral award passed by the Facilitation Council by invoking statutory arbitration under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), while holding that the Council could not have exercised jurisdiction to conduct arbitration in a dispute arising under a works contract. The bench of...
High Court Exercises Judicial Function Under S. 11 (6) of Arbitration Act; Principle Of Res Judicata Applicable To S. 11 Petition: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the High Court exercises a judicial function under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and thus while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 for appointment of Arbitrator, the High Court can determine the issue of maintainability of a petition on any ground, including on territorial jurisdiction or...