Arbitration
Issue Whether Main Claim Is Time Barred, Is An Issue On Merits; Must Be Decided In Arbitral Proceedings: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that while the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking appointment of arbitrator, is to be examined by the Court, the limitation aspect of the substantive claims is to be looked into only by the arbitral tribunal and not by the Court. The bench of Justice Bharati...
12 Months Time Limit Under Section 29A Arbitration Act Not Applicable To International Commercial Arbitration : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the time limit of twelve months as prescribed in Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable for international commercial arbitration."In terms of the amended provisions of Section 29A, arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are only expected to make an endeavor to complete the proceedings within twelve months from the date...
‘Limitation’ Doesn’t Involve Any “Basic Notions Of Morality Or Justice”, For Setting Aside Award : Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the ground of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, can never be a ground which would involve any “basic notions of morality or justice” for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Court reckoned that the arbitral tribunal had concluded that the claims raised...
Wrong Application Of Law Not Leading To Perversity; Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because the arbitrator had wrongly applied the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP Policy), while adjudication a dispute over domain names under the said Policy, the award cannot be set aside in the absence of perversity. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ruled that the terminology used by the arbitrator in the award,...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 8 January to 14 January 2022
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...
Drafting Of An Arbitration Agreement – Key Checkpoints
The importance of well – drafted agreements cannot be overstated, more so in the case of Arbitration agreements which are often drafted without much thought and care, infamously referred to as mid – night clauses as they are often reviewed last moment before signing a contract. A one – size fits all approach can pose significant problems and increase time, cost and complexity of the dispute to be adjudicated upon and result counterproductive to say the least. This article attempts to shed...
Award Against Guarantor Who Is Not Member Of Multi State Co-Op Society, Without Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has set aside an award passed pursuant to an arbitral reference made under Section 84(1) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), since the award debtor was not a member of the Co-operative Society. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled that a dispute, which is not covered under Section 84 (1) of the MSCS Act, would not be capable of...
Dispute Whether Partner Can Use Firm’s Trade Mark For His Own Sole Proprietorship, Can Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that disputes relating to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem are arbitrable. Thus, the bench of Justice Navin Chawla concluded that the dispute whether a partner can use the partnership firm’s trade mark for his own sole proprietorship concern, can be referred to arbitration. The Court further ruled that merely because a...
Section 34 Application Does Not Cease To Be An Application Only Because Procedural Requirements Were Not Complied: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) does not cease to be an application merely because the applicant has not complied with certain procedural requirements. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that filing an affidavit in support of...
Court Has No Jurisdiction To Review Order Passed Under Section 11 of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that orders passed in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C) cannot be reviewed since there is no provision of review contained in the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing a review petition filed against the arbitral reference made under Section 11, held that...
Starting Point Of Limitation U/Section 34(3) Arbitration Act In Cases Of Suo Motu Correction Of Award : Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court observed that the starting point for the limitation under Section 34(3) Arbitration and Concliation Act, in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the party.Once the arbitral award has been amended or corrected, it is the corrected award which has to be challenged and not the...
Arbitration Under MSMED Act For Supplies Made Prior To Registration, Void-ab-initio: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that arbitral proceedings initiated under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) relating to the services provided by the claimant before its registration under the MSMED Act, are void-ab-initio. The bench of Dr. Justice A. P. Thaker held that for initiation of proceedings like conciliation and arbitration under the...