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...

Non-Payment/Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty Cannot Render The Arbitration Agreement Invalid: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that non-payment or insufficiency of stamp duty on the underlying agreement cannot render the arbitration clause invalid. The Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited[1] and Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another...

Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Can Be Presumed If No Denial Is Made In The Reply: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the words "statements of claim and defence" under Section 7(4)(c) of the A&C Act are to be given wider interpretation and reply to a notice of arbitration falls within the section. The bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar held in terms of Section 7(4)(c) an arbitration agreement is said to exist if the petitioner has asserted its existence in...

Commercial Court Cannot Be Regarded As A "Person Or Institution" Under Section 11(6) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the jurisdiction and power of the High Court in relation to the appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), has not been divested by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court added that the term "all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration", as provided under...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 28 August To 3 September, 2022

Bombay High Court: Notice Under Section 21 Of A&C Act Issued; Court Not Barred From Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 9: Bombay High Court Case Title: Relcon Infroprojects Ltd. & Anr. versus Ridhi Sidhi Sadan, Unit of Shree Ridhi Co.op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors The Bombay High Court has ruled that merely because a notice under Section 21 of the...

Award Passed By A Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est, It Cannot Be A Bar To The Maintainability Of Petition Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The High Court of Delhi has held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is non-est, therefore, it cannot be a bar to the maintainability of a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Ac. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that passing of an award would not give sanctity to the non-est proceedings and the mere fact that the petitioner did not challenge...

Order Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Which Results In Conclusion Of Arbitral Proceedings- Can Be Challenged Under Section 34: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that if an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), of ruling on its own jurisdiction, has the effect of concluding the arbitral proceedings, the same would be challengeable under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that since...

Order Passed By High Court, Recording Consent Of Parties To Appoint A Specified Arbitrator, Is Not An Order 'Appointing An Arbitrator': Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has ruled that the order passed by the High Court in a writ petition, recording the consent of the parties to appoint a specified Arbitrator while referring them to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be said to be an order appointing an Arbitrator. The Single Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol held...

Section 8 Of A&C Act Falls Outside The Scope Of Section 42: Madras High Court Reiterates

The Madras High Court has reiterated that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is an exception to Section 42 of the A&C Act. The Court added that if Section 8 is also brought within the ambit of Section 42, it would defeat the sublime philosophy underlining arbitration i.e., party autonomy. The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar ruled that a party...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Round Up: August 2022

Supreme Court: Mere Use Of Words "Arbitration" Or "Arbitrator" In A Clause Won't Make It Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Case Title: Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. versus IVRCL AMR Joint Venture Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657 The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of the parties to refer the...

Refusal Of The Defendant To Amicably Settle The Dispute Satisfies The Requirement Of Pre-Litigation Mediation Under Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that when the plaintiff makes an offer to the defendant to amicably settle the dispute and the defendant refuses the offer then in that circumstance, the requirement of pre-litigation meditation stands satisfied. The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh while reiterating that pre-litigation mediation as provided under Section 12-A of the CCA is a...

Application Under O.7 R. 11 Is Not The Submission Of The First Statement On The Substance Of Dispute, Application Under Section 8 Of A&C Act Can Still Be Filed: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that an application for rejection of a plaint cannot be considered to be the first statement on the substance of the dispute as it is merely an incidental procedural proceeding. The Bench of Chief Justice held that mere filing of an application for rejection of plaint would not debar a party from subsequently filing an application...