Arbitration
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...
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...