Notice Under Section 21 Of A&C Act Issued; Court Not Barred From Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 9: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that merely because a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to refer the disputes to arbitration is issued by a party, the Court is not barred from exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act for interim measures. The Court added that it is not constrained to refer the parties to arbitration...

Arbitral Award With Contradictory Findings Is Liable To Be Set Aside: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator has given contradictory findings is liable to be set aside. The Bench of Justice Krishna Rao reiterated that an arbitral award wherein no reasons are given for arriving at a particular finding is also liable to be set aside. Facts The parties entered into an agreement dated 09.01.1997 whereby...

MOU Between Private Parties Cannot Be Specifically Enforced; Party Not Entitled To Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a MOU which is in the nature of a commercial transaction between two private parties is by its very nature determinable and hence, the said MOU can be terminated even in the absence of any termination clause contained in it. The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that since the MOU was not capable of specific performance due to the statutory...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 21 August To 27 August, 2022

Bombay High Court: Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of A&C Act - Incidental To Recovery Of Possession OfProperty; Small Causes Court Alone Would Have Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Case Title: BXIN Office Parks India Pvt. Ltd. versus Kailasa Urja Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court has ruled that reliefs which are incidental to the possession of the licensed premises cannot be...

Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator ; Calcutta High Court Replaces With A New Arbitrator

The Calcutta High Court has held that an arbitration clause does not come to an end merely because it provides for an illegal method of appointment of arbitrator and the courts can remove the illegal portion and retain the remaining clause to give effect to the intention of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration. The Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf further held that...

Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of A&C Act- Incidental To Recovery Of Possession Of Property; Small Causes Court Alone Would Have Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that reliefs which are incidental to the possession of the licensed premises cannot be sought in an application for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), in view of the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act,...

Arbitrator Appointed Under MSCS Act; Fixation Of Fees Is Subject To A&C Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that the power of the Central Registrar to appoint an arbitrator and fix the fees of arbitration under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). Holding that there is no provision under the MSCS Act where an exemption has been provided with...

Unilateral Constitution Of A Narrow Panel Of Arbitrators Violates Impartiality : Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the power conferred on one party to unilaterally choose names from a panel of arbitrators and forwarding it to the other party to select its arbitrator from those names is violative of principle of impartiality in arbitration. The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that such a unilateral exercise of power creates space for suspicion...

Mere Erroneous Application Of Law; Award Need Not Be Set Aside: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has reiterated that when the court is convinced that the Arbitrator has erred only on specific issues and that the arbitral award is otherwise sustainable, the court is not mandatorily required to set aside the entire award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled that though...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 14 August To 20 August, 2022

Bombay High Court: Arbitral Tribunal Not Barred Under Section 79 Of The RERA Act From Passing An Order Of Injunction: Bombay High Court Case Title: Ashok Palav Coop. Housing Society Ltd. versus Pankaj Bhagubhai Desai & Anr The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal is not a Civil Court within the meaning and purview of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and...

Substitution Of Arbitrator On Ground Of Bias Will Not Come Within The Scope Of Substitution Under Section 29A (6) Of A&C Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that allegation of bias cannot be raised as a ground to seek substitution of Arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Single Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan held that there is a stark difference between the substitution of an Arbitrator under Section 15(2) and the substitution of the Arbitrator...

Mere Reply To The Notice Of Arbitration Would Not Save The Limitation Period For Filing Counter-Claims: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that a mere reply to the notice of arbitration would not save the period of limitation for filing the counter-claim(s). The Court held that the date on which the counterclaim is filed before the arbitrator would be the relevant date for determining the date of stopping of the period of limitation unless the respondent had issued a separate...