Arbitral Tribunal Not Barred Under Section 79 Of The RERA Act From Passing An Order Of Injunction: Bombay High Court

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 thus, the arbitral proceedings cannot be said to be barred under Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that the bar of Section 79 of the RERA...

Conduct Of The Parties Can't Substitute Arbitration Agreement: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that the Court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the A&C Act is bound to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement, in absence of the agreement, it cannot refer the parties to arbitration merely because the respondent did not raise objections. The Bench of Justice Bebangshu Basak held that the conduct of the parties is...

Award Passed By An Arbitrator Who Doesn't Have Qualification As Per Agreement Is Non-Est: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that if the agreement between the parties provides for certain qualifications of an arbitrator, then the appointment must be made in accordance with those qualifications only. The Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar further held that an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is to be treated...

Contract Discharged By Settlement – Dispute Under Contract Is A Deadwood; Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that once a settlement is arrived at by the parties, the contract between the parties stands discharged by mutual agreement and hence, the dispute arising under the said contract is a deadwood which cannot be referred to arbitration. Observing that a party who conceals or suppresses facts, including the factum of a settlement, is disentitled to relief...

When Liability Admitted, Arbitration Clause Is Not A Bar To Entertain Writ Petition: Patna High Court

The High Court of Patna has held that arbitration clause is not a bar to the maintainability of a writ petition when the liability to pay is not disputed by the respondent. The Division Bench of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Madhresh Prasad held that once the liability to pay is admitted by the respondent, there remains no dispute that can be referred to...

Exclusive Jurisdiction Is Good For Civil Suits, Can't Supersede The Seat Of Arbitration: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that merely because exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on a different court, the same cannot amount to contrary indicia and the venue of arbitration would still be the seat of arbitration. The Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that exclusive jurisdiction clause cannot supersede the designation of venue/seat of...

Dismissal On Locus Standi Without Opportunity To Bring On Record Documents; Violation Of Section 18 Of The A&C Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that dismissal of the claim on the ground of locus standi without the opportunity to bring necessary documents on merit and hearing the claims on merit is violation of Section 18 of the A&C Act that provides for equal treatment for parties. The Bench of Justice Devashis Baruah was hearing an appeal against the order of the lower court passed...

Award Of Demurrage Charges Under Major Ports Act Is Not Valid When Contract Does Not Provide For Such Charges : Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta held that the arbitral tribunal cannot award demurrage charges on the basis of Major Ports Act, 1963 when the contract between the parties has no provision for such damages. The Bench of Justice Krishna Rao held that an arbitral award wherein the tribunal has awarded demurrage charges in absence of any provision in the agreement for levy of such charge would...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 7th August To 13th August, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court: Arbitration Agreement Not A Bar For Referring Parties To Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act:Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: M/s. Dalapathi Constructions versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a reference to the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,...

Section 5 Limitation Act Application Not Required If Application Under Section 34 Of A&C Act Is Within Statutory Period: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has ruled that there is no requirement under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to file a separate application for condonation of delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the A&C Act, since the prescribed and the extended periods are both provided under Section 34 of the...

Supersession Of The Arbitration Clause Must Not Be Inferred Lightly: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of the principle of 'when in doubt, do refer', as enunciated by the Supreme Court, if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, which is sought to be negated by a party by citing other provisions of a contract, which requires interpretation of the contract, the Court must lean towards referring the matter to arbitration. The...

Arbitration Agreement Not A Bar For Referring Parties To Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a reference to the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) for conciliation and subsequent arbitration, is not barred on account of the presence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. The Single Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao held that even if the arbitration...