Participation In Arbitral Proceedings, Does Not Disentitle Party To Challenge Award On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that merely because a party participated in the arbitration proceedings, it is not disentitled from challenging the arbitral award on the ground that the arbitration proceedings were vitiated due to the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator by the opposite party, falling foul of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration...

Time Spent On Application Under Section 8 Of A&C Act, Not Excludable For Computation Of Limitation For Counter Claim: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in a suit filed by a party, the time spent by the opposite party in pursuing its application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be excluded for the purpose of computation of the limitation period for filing the counter-claims by the opposite party before the Arbitral Tribunal. The bench of Justices...

Arbitrator's Fee ; An Analysis Of Indian And International Laws

Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliationare alternate dispute resolution mechanisms which are preferred over litigation for they are cost effective and time saving. Keeping in mind the high pendency of cases, arbitration and mediation are encouraged by the judiciary as it shares the burden of the courts in winding up the matter in a time-bound manner. The bench of the Tribunal comprises of an officer of the court who is well versed with the domain knowledge. The designated arbitrators have...

Arbitration Clause In An Agreement Can't Be Invoked For Another Agreement, Operating Independently: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere reference to an Agreement containing an arbitration clause, in a subsequent Agreement, will not bring about a consequence envisaged under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), to the effect that the arbitration agreement would be incorporated into the subsequent Agreement. The Court added that...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 20 November To 26 November, 2022

Delhi High Court: Rights Under An Agreement Are Superseded By A Subsequent One? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court Case Title: PVR Limited versus Imperia Wishfield Private Limited The Delhi High Court has ruled that the arbitration clause relates to the resolution of disputes between the parties and not the performance of the contract and thus, the...

Intention Of Parties As To Seat Of Arbitration Can Be Determined From Their Conduct: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the intention of the parties to an agreement, as to the seat of arbitration, can be determined from their conduct.Justice N. Nagaresh was dealing with a case where the Sale Contract between the parties prescribed Haridwar as the seat of arbitration but the subsequent High Sea Sale Agreement prescribed Kollam as the seat.While determining the...

Rights Under An Agreement Are Superseded By A Subsequent One? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the arbitration clause relates to the resolution of disputes between the parties and not the performance of the contract and thus, the arbitration agreement survives even if the contract comes to an end. The single bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the issue whether the rights of parties under an agreement are superseded by...

Amazon - Future Group Arbitration- Delhi High Court Dismisses Future's Application Being Interlocutory

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd., challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal allowing Amazon's application for amendment of Claims, seeking repudiatory damages for breach of Agreements executed with Future Coupons. The Court ruled that the said order was interlocutory in nature, and thus, it is not amenable to challenge...

Challenge Under Section 17 Of The SARFAESI Act Against Action Taken By Secured Creditor, Would Not Bar Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that arbitration proceedings and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) can go hand in hand. The single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that even if a party intended to take action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing a petition...

Acceptance Of Goods Does Not Constitute Acceptance To Arbitration Clause, Unilaterally Included In Delivery Challan: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that unilaterally including a clause in the Delivery Challan would not constitute an arbitration agreement between the parties merely because the opposite party had accepted the delivery of goods and had signed the Delivery Challan certifying the acceptance of goods. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that in order to constitute...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13 November To 19 November, 2022

Delhi High Court: Invalidity Of The Appointment Procedure Would Not Render The Entire Arbitration Clause Invalid: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. versus NTPC The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the procedure for the appointment of the arbitrator has become invalid due to 2015 amendment act, the same would not render the...

Non-Participation Of Defendant Is Good For Compliance Of Sec 12-A Of The Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the failure of the defendant to participate in the Pre-Institution Mediation suffice the requirement of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the consent of the plaintiff for instituting the pre-suit meditation would be irrelevant if the...