Proceedings Between Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate And Its Extension Are Not Void If Mandate Is Extended: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that proceedings conducted by the Arbitrator between the expiry of the mandate and its subsequent extension cannot be declared void once the application seeking extension is allowed. Upon extension, the mandate relates back to the date of expiry. The present application has been filed seeking extension of the...

Failure To Frame Counter Claim As An Additional Issue When It Forms Part Of Pleadings Is Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that once the reasons/basis for a counter claim, the amount and computation of the counter claim had been made in the Reply, it does not matter if there is no specific prayer in the prayer clause. In such a scenario, an arbitral award refusing to frame an issue for the counter claim would be patently illegal and would...

Interim Injunction U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Granted To Prevent Convening Of Meeting For Removal Of Director: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has observed that an interim injunction under section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) cannot be granted to prevent convening of extraordinary general meeting for removal of a director as it effectively amounts to grant of final relief and impinges upon statutory powers conferred to...

Timeline Prescribed For Filing Statement Of Defence Under Rule 18(3) Of Indian Council Of Arbitration Rules Is Directory In Nature: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the timeline prescribed under Indian Council of Arbitration Rules, 2024 for filing a Statement of Defence by the respondent is directory in nature and can be extended by the Arbitral Tribunal if a sufficient cause is established. The Petitioner challenges an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by which it declined to...

Post-Termination Restrictive Covenants In Employment Contracts Are Void U/S 27 Of Contract Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that post-service restrictive covenants in employment contracts, which operate after cessation of employment, are void and are not enforceable under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”) and violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court vacated the injunction granted in an...

Non-Signatories Have No Right To Attend Arbitration Proceedings, Their Presence Breaches Confidentiality : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Aug. 13) observed that a party non-signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot participate in the arbitration proceedings, as the signatories to an arbitration agreement are only entitled to remain present in the arbitration proceedings. The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which allowed...

Place Of Exclusive Jurisdiction Deemed As 'Seat' Of Arbitration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of a seat or venue of arbitration in the arbitration agreement, the place where the exclusive jurisdiction has been vested as per the agreement would be regarded as the 'seat' of the arbitration.The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order allowing an application for the appointment...

OYO Approaches Delhi High Court Challenging Arbitral Award In Co-Working Space Lease Dispute Against Lenskart

Oyo has filed a section 34 petition before the High Court of Delhi, challenging a few portions of an arbitral award passed in the dispute between Oyo and Lenskart (“Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd v. Lenskart Solutions”) pertaining to the termination of a co-working space lease during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the arbitral proceedings, Oyo was partially successful and has filed the...

Parties' Decision To Transact Goods In 'Sound Condition' Prevails Over Prior Agreement To Transact On 'As Is Where Is' Basis”: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar while upholding an arbitral award has observed that if the parties had agreed to transact goods on 'as is where is' basis in the tender document but agreed in the acceptance letter that the goods would be transacted on 'sound condition' basis, then the earlier agreement will stand substituted...

Reference To Dispute Resolution Board Not Mandatory Before Invoking S.11(6) Of Arbitration Act If It Is Not Constituted On Time: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a party cannot be compelled to approach the Dispute Resolution Board (DSB) for resolution of disputes first before invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act especially when the DSB was not constituted as per terms of the contract and its composition was not even communicated to...

Disputes Over Disaffiliation Of State Golf Associations Can Be Referred To Arbitration Under Clause 66 Of IGU Rules: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, in a notable judgment has observed that the dispute resolution clause provided in Clause 66 of the IGU Rules and Regulations would apply to instances of disaffiliation of a state golf association by the Indian Golf Union (IGU) and the arbitration would be conducted under the aegis of Arbitration Commission of the...

Cause Of Action Arises From Clear Refusal To Perform Contractual Obligations, Not Mere Non-Performance: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that when there is a clear refusal by one of the parties to perform the terms of a contract, the cause of action arises from the date of such refusal, and not from the date of initial non-performance, especially where negotiations continued, implying that the parties possibly wanted to extend the time for...