Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: January 2023

Supreme Court: Starting Point Of Limitation U/ Section 34(3) Arbitration Act In Cases Of Suo Motu Correction Of Award: Supreme Court Explains Case Title: USS Alliance versus State of Uttar Pradesh The Supreme Court has observed that the starting point for the limitation under Section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be...

Arbitrator’s Power To Grant Interim Measures Is pari passu With Court’s Powers Under S. 9 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that, post the Amendment Act of 2015, the powers of the Arbitrator to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is pari passu with the powers of the Court under Section 9 of the Act. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf remarked that the test applicable for granting interim...

Delhi High Court Upholds Use Of Rule Of Contra Proferentem By Arbitrator While Interpreting Contract

The Delhi High Court has ruled that, if the arbitrator uses a contract executed between the parties to determine a dispute, the clauses of the contract should, in principle, be construed contra proferentem, i.e., the clauses should be interpreted against the party that drafted it. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh remarked that the rule of contra proferentem can be regarded as...

Question Of ‘Accord And Satisfaction’ Cannot Be Determined Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to the examination of the existence of the arbitration clause and determination of an arbitrable dispute. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf relied on the judgment in Mayavati Trading v. Pradyvat Deb Burman[1] to hold that a Court exercising powers under Section 11...

ONGC V. Afcons By SC Will Not Affect Fee Already Fixed By Arbitration Tribunal : Delhi High Court

The Supreme Court in ONGC v. Afcons, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 723 has held that maximum fees that an arbitrator can charge on a claim is Rs. 30 Lakhs. The High Court of Delhi was considering a situation wherein the fees was fixed in terms of the earlier law. The petitioner challenged the fees so fixed as violative of the Supreme Court order. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna...

‘Seat’ Of Arbitration Would Be Where Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Conducted Arbitral Proceedings Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the ‘Seat’ of arbitration would be the place where the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) has conducted the arbitral proceedings as per the provisions of Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act. The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that since there was no arbitration agreement...

Saving The Claims: Excluding Time Spent In Pre-Arbitration Mechanisms From The Period Of Limitation

Pre-arbitration mechanisms refer to dispute resolution mechanism whereby the parties make an attempt to resolve their dispute or grievances without formally invoking the arbitration. It can be by way of mutual talks, mediation/conciliation, or through an internal dispute redressal body. It is now common practice for the parties to a commercial contract to provide for an attempt at amicable settlement of disputes before formally invoking the arbitration, thus, most of the contracts...

Talks Of Settlement Between Parties After Arbitrator Enters Upon Reference, Would Not Stop Limitation For Passing Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that since the the amended provisions of Section 29A (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) are essentially procedural in character, they would apply even to arbitrations pending on the date the amended provision was brought into force. Section 29A (1) of A&C Act, as amended by the 2019 Amendment Act, w.e.f....

A Final Relief Cannot Be Granted Under Section 9 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court cannot grant a relief which is final in nature in an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that relief contemplated under Section 9 of the Act is only interim in nature I.e., ‘in the intervening time’ or ‘provisional’ and it has to be in aid of the enforcement of the...

Common Statement Of Claims For Separate But Interlinked Agreements, Can Be Filed Before Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the arbitral reference made to a common Sole Arbitrator as well as a common State of Claims filed before the Arbitral Tribunal, with respect to a dispute arising under two separate agreements, considering the fact that the agreements were closely interlinked and contained identical Arbitration Clauses, stipulating same conditions. The bench...

No-Claim Certificate In Pre-Printed Form And Pre- Condition To The Release Of Payment Amounts To Coercion : Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the a no-claim certificate is given under coercion if it was in a pre-printed form and a pre-condition to the release of payment under the final bill. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held dispute between the parties cannot be said to be settled by accord and satisfaction on account of no-claim certificate given by the...

Court Not Powerless To Appoint Appropriate Arbitral Tribunal, Even If Party Forfeits Its Right Under Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that even if a party’s right to appoint its nominee in the Arbitral Tribunal as per the arbitration clause, is forfeited because it failed to exercise its right within the statutory period after receiving the notice invoking arbitration, it would not render the Court powerless to appoint an appropriate Arbitral Tribunal, after considering the nature of...