Limitation Is An Aspect Of Public Policy For The Purpose Section 34 Of Arbitration Act : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that limitation is a facet of public policy, and hence, an arbitral award which is incorrect qua limitation is hit by Section 34(2)(b)(ii), read with Clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that, in view of the principle laid down by...

Account Statements And IT Returns Relied On By Arbitral Tribunal, Have Evidentiary Value : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the arbitral award cannot be set aside on the ground that the material relied upon by the Arbitral Tribunal does not measure up to the standards under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Bench, consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan, held that an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, by relying upon the Bank Account statements and...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: July 31 To August 6 , 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 disputes...

Request For Oral Hearing Cannot Be Denied by The Arbitral Tribunal On The Ground That The Claims Involved Are Modest: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has ruled that where the Arbitral Tribunal has passed a foreign arbitral award after denying the request of a party for oral hearing, the said arbitral award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law as it is in conflict with the basic notions of justice and hence, it cannot be enforced in India. The Bench, consisting of Justices P. Naveen Rao...

Remedy Under RERA Act Is Not A Bar For Initiation Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute involving refund of payment under the 'Flat Buyer Agreement' from a real estate developer is arbitrable and is not barred by the existence of a concurrent remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the remedies available under the RERA Act...

Arbitral Tribunal Has The Power To Vacate/Modify Its Earlier Order: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitral tribunal would be guided by the principles of O. 39 R. 1&2 of CPC while considering the issue of vacation/modification of an interim order. The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the tribunal does not have the power of substantive review of its order, however, it does have the power to vacate or modify the conditions of...

Arbitration Clause In The Annexure To The Agreement Would Be Binding On The Parties: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in the annexure to the main agreement would be binding on the parties to that agreement. The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that in view of Section 11(6-A) the justiciability of claims and the defences can only be determined through adjudication by the arbitrator. Facts The petitioner filed...

Mere Use Of Words "Arbitration" Or "Arbitrator" In A Clause Won't Make It Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of parties to refer disputes to arbitration.The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna noted that mere use of the word "arbitration" or "arbitrator" in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-up: July 2022

Supreme Court: Court Under Section 34,37 Arbitration Act Cannot Modify An Award ; It Can Only Remand: Supreme Court Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584 The Supreme Court observed that, under Section 34 or 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a Court cannot modify the award passed by the...

Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause Not Signed By A Party; Parties Can Still Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the Agreement containing an Arbitration Clause has not been signed by a party to the dispute, the parties can still be referred to Arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that it is not necessary for the written document to be signed by all the parties, as long as the existence of an arbitration agreement can be culled...

Existence Of Contingent Contract U/S 31 Of Contract Act Is A Dispute To Be Referred To Arbitration: Telangana High Court

Recently, the Telangana High Court observed that existence of a "Contingent Contract" cannot be decided in the limited jurisdiction of Courts under Section 11 of Arbitration Act. Justice K. Lakshman, placing reliance on Supreme Court decision in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) observed that the scope of interference by the Courts under Section 11 of Arbitration...

Clause "Every Effort" To Arbitrate; Must Be Referred To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is the intention of the parties that has to be deciphered while determining whether or not the parties must be referred to arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that where the arbitration clause between the parties provided that "every effort" should be made by them to settle the dispute by arbitration, the term...