High Court Cannot Review The Order Passed Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the High Courts cannot review an order passed under Section 11 of the A&C Act as the Act does not contain any provision for review. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that power of review is not an inherent power but the creation of a statute, therefore, it cannot be exercised absence of a provision. The Court held that unlike...

Clause Merely Providing Departmental Remedies, For Faster Resolution Of Disputes; Does Not Constitute An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the power of appointment of arbitrator by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be deemed to have a precedential value. However, the Court held that the same cannot be a reason to completely ignore the interpretation placed by the High Court in its previous decisions, in respect of...

An Issue As To Which Party Would Bear The GST Expenses Under The Agreement Is Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an issue that purely relates to the inter se liability of the parties regarding the burden of GST is not related to the taxing power of the State, therefore, the same is arbitrable. The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that a dispute surmised on the Pricing Clause in an agreement wherein the inter se liabilities of the parties regarding...

A&C Amendment Act of 2015 Applies Even If Arbitration Commenced Prior, In Case It Is Stated That Amendment Act Applies: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that where an arbitration agreement between the parties provided for the application of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), along with any statutory modification or re-enactment to the A&C Act, existing at the time being in force, it constituted an agreement between the parties as contemplated under Section 26 of the...

[Arbitration & Conciliation Act] Proceedings U/S 9 Interim In Nature, Not Meant For Enforcement Of Conditions Of Contract: JKL High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Monday ruled that final relief cannot be granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as proceedings under the said provision are of interim measure and are not meant for enforcement of the conditions of the contract, which can be done only when the rights of the parties are finally adjudged or crystallized by...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 27 November To 3 December, 2022

Bombay High Court: Participation In Arbitral Proceedings, Does Not Disentitle Party To Challenge Award On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator: Bombay High Court Case Title: Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani & Ors. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr. The Bombay High Court has ruled that merely because a party participated in the arbitration proceedings, it is...

Arbitration Barred In Respect Of Matters Within Exclusive Jurisdiction Of TDSAT Under TRAI Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is barred in respect of matters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act).Justice N. Nagaresh observed that TRAI Act is a special law and would prevail over...

Section 9 Of The A&C Act Is A Provision In Aid Of The Arbitration, Applies To Foreign Seated Arbitration Also: Calcutta High Court Reiterates

The High Court of Calcutta has held that Section 9 of the A&C Act that provides for interim relief by the Court applies to foreign seated arbitration as well. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that Section 9 is a provision that is in aid of the arbitration proceedings in contrast to other provisions of Part-I that relates to the conduct of the arbitration proceedings and...

Fresh Notice Under Section 21 Not Required To Be Issued For Appointment Of Substitute Arbitrator: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a party is not required to make a fresh request for appointment of substitute arbitrator by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), if notice under Section 21 was issued for appointment of the arbitrator sought to be substituted. The bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that once...

Requirement Of Notice Of Arbitration Is Not A Mere Technicality: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a notice of arbitration is sine qua non for commencing an arbitral proceeding and invalidity of invocation goes to the very root of the matter and hits the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain applications arising out of the arbitration proceedings. The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that requirement of a notice of arbitration is not a...

Findings On Limitation, During Section 16 Proceedings, Can't Be Challenged Under Sec. 34 Of A&C Act: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the findings of the Arbitrator relating to the issue of limitation, arrived at while dealing with an application filed under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator on the ground that the claims raised by the claimant were barred by limitation, do not constitute an...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: November 2022

Supreme Court: Issue Of Arbitrability Should Be Left To Arbitrator Unless On The Face It Is Found That Dispute Is Non- Arbitrable: Supreme Court Case Title: VGP Marine Kingdom Pvt Ltd versus Kay Ellen Arnold The Supreme Court reiterated that while considering application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the dispute with respect to...