Rejection Of Belated Application For Amendment Of Claim - Not An Interim Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application for amendment of statement of claims on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage, does not constitute an interim award and thus, it is not challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). While observing the distinction between the rejection...

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Without Protest, In Absence Of Agreement On Seat; Venue Is Also The Seat Of Arbitration: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that where the parties have failed to specifically mention the seat of arbitration and have participated in the arbitral proceedings at a place without any protest, the parties shall be said to have determined, by their conduct, the said venue of arbitral proceedings as also the seat of arbitration. Hence, the courts at the said place would...

Arbitration Clause In An Unregistered But Compulsorily Registrable Document Can Be Enforced: Uttarakhand High Court Reiterates

The Uttarakhand High Court recently observed that an arbitration agreement does not require registration under the Registration Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's findings in SMS Tea Estates Private Limited v. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited, (2011) 14 SCC 66, a bench comprising Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi reiterated: "Even if it is found as one of the clauses in a contract...

Substitution Of Arbitrator Based On Allegation Of Collusion Can't Be Done Under Section 11 of A& C Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has ruled that in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Court cannot, on the ground of collusion, refuse to appoint the arbitrator as specified in the arbitration clause and appoint a substitute arbitrator. The Single Bench of Justice K. Lakshman held that the allegations regarding any...

Parties Can Deviate From Terms Of Jurisdiction Under The Arbitration Clause Only Once: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that the parties have got the liberty to deviate from the terms with respect to the jurisdiction, as contained in the Arbitration Clause; however, the number of such deviations is limited to only one. The Single Bench of Justice R.N. Manjula held that waiver of the jurisdiction clause contained in the arbitration agreement can be presumed from the...

Interlocutory Order Passed By The Arbitrator, Rejecting Application For Amendment Of Claims; Not Challengeable Under Article 227: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that all interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal are not amenable to challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that there is no statutory or other legal bar under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), including under the proviso to Section 34...

Writ Maintainable Against An Award Passed By Statutory Arbitrator Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that an award passed by the statutory arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 where neither the notice of arbitration was served nor the copy of the award was given to the appellants is violative of principles of natural justice. The Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Kausik Chanda held the availability of an alternative efficacious...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 4 September To 10 September, 2022

Supreme Court: Arbitration Clause Has To Be Given Effect Even If It Does Not Expressly State That Decision Of Arbitrator Is Final & Binding On Parties: Supreme Court Case Title: Babanrao Rajaram Pund versus Samarth Builders & Developers Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 747 The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration clause has to be given effect even if it...

Court Can't Appoint Arbitrator Where Parties Fail To Raise Dispute In Time Or Avoid In-House Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently, while dealing with a matter pertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that court can't entertain application for appointment of arbitrator where parties fail to raise dispute in time or avoid in-house dispute resolution mechanism.The observation was made by Justice Arup Kumar Goswami:"A perusal of...

Presence Of An Arbitration Clause Does Not Always Oust Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that writs under Article 226 are maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the State or its instrumentalities and the presence of Arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can...

Arbitration Clause Has To Be Given Effect Even If It Does Not Expressly State That Decision Of Arbitrator Is Final & Binding On Parties: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration clause has to be given effect even if it does not expressly state that the decision of the arbitrator will be final and binding on the parties.The deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies the intention of the parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise the annulment of arbitration clause, the...

Accepting Terms And Conditions on Website Containing Arbitration Agreement, Valid: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has reiterated that reference of a dispute to arbitration can only be refused in cases of "serious allegations of fraud", which is made out when either of the tests propounded by the Apex Court in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. versus HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (2020), are satisfied.The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni ruled that a...