Extension Of Limitation For Section 34 Application, Is Not Contingent On Merits Of Section 33 Application: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the benefit of extension of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), by virtue of an application filed under Section 33, for correction and interpretation of award, would not apply solely to the parties making the request under Section 33. The single bench of Justice...

Invalidity Of The Appointment Procedure Would Not Render The Entire Arbitration Clause Invalid: Delhi High Court

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 entire arbitration clause invalid. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that there are several elements present in an arbitration clause such as procedure for appointment of arbitrator, law...

Arbitration Survives Even If Arbitration Under MSMED Act Declared Non-Maintainable: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that once a dispute is referred to the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), if the Facilitation Council adjudicates the dispute on merits, such decision would operate as res judicata and would bar the institution of arbitral proceedings in respect of the same dispute. However, the...

Section 12(5) Of A&C Act Applies To Proceedings Commenced Before Or After The 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that Section 12(5) that provides for grounds of ineligibility of arbitrator would apply regardless whether the notice of arbitration was given before or after the 2015 amendment came into force provided that the appointment was made on a date Section 12(5) was in force. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that in view of Section...

Sec.19 Of MSMED Act Applies To All Kinds Of Challenges : Gujarat High Court

The High Court of Gujarat has held that Section 19 of MSMED Act, which provides for 75% deposit of the awarded amount as a pre-condition to challenging any order, award or decree passed in favour of the supplier, applies to all challenge applications regardless of whether the decree, award, order was passed by MSME Council, independent arbitration or the Court. The bench of Justice...

Doctrine Of Group Of Companies, Can't Implead Third Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Doctrine of Group of Companies cannot be applied to implead a non-signatory third party to arbitration, in a dispute arising between partners relating to the partnership business. The Court held that partnership in its very nature cannot be equated with a company to invoke the Doctrine of Group of Companies. The Single Bench of Justice...

Period Of Limitation For The Appointment Of Substitute Arbitrator Begins On The Date Of His Recusal/Removal, Date Of Knowledge Is Irrelevant: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the period of limitation for appointing a substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the A&C Act commences on the date of recusal/removal of the arbitrator and the date on which the fact of his removal/recusal comes to the knowledge of a party is irrelevant for the purpose of limitation. The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that...

Section 31 Of The Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 Does Not Bar Constitution Of An Arbitral Tribunal: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that the bar contained under Section 31 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (CIC Act) will not apply to proceedings for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, to resolve the disputes in the manner prescribed under the CIC Act. The Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the object and purpose of Section 31 of the...

Subsequent Consulting Agreements Prescribing Arbitration Do Not Bind Parties When MoU Forming Basis Of Claim Doesn't Contain Arbitration Clause: P&H High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that where the claim of a party to an agreement is based upon a Memorandum of Understanding which does not contain an arbitration clause, the Court is not required to refer the matter merely because the subsequent Consulting Agreements executed by the parties contemplate arbitration. The bench comprising Justice Augustine George Masih and...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 6 November To 12 November, 2022

Calcutta High Court: Arbitrator Cannot Apply 'Trade Usages' Against The Express Understanding Of The Parties: Calcutta High Court Case Title: M/s. Universal Seaport Private Limited versus The Chairman, Board Of Trustees For The Port Of Kolkata The Calcutta High Court has held that the arbitrator cannot, while adjudicating the dispute between the parties, apply trade usages...

Court Cannot Partly Set Aside Award In Absence Of Manifest And Patent Error, And Without A Finding As To Its Severability: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that in the absence of a manifest and patent error in the arbitral award, the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) cannot interfere with the award, by partly upholding it and by disallowing the rest of the claims of the claimant. The Division Bench of Justices Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Ramesh...

Arbitrator Gets Jurisdiction Only With Respect To 'Notified' Claims; Delay/ Failure to Certify Claim as 'Notified', Does Not Operate As Waiver: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitrator gets the jurisdiction only with respect to the claims which are 'notified' by the specified authority, as provided in the arbitration clause, and that if the claims are not notified, they will not form the subject matter of arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the procedure of forwarding a panel of names...