If The Imposition Of LD Was Contingent On Extension Of Time, Recovery Of LD Is Not Time Barred: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot reject the claim of a party for refund of Liquidated Damages (LD) as barred by time if it was inextricably linked to the issue of Extension of Time (EOT) on which the decision of the competent authority was pending. The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the period of limitation for the purpose of refund of LD would...

Notice Of Proceeding Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act Is A Mandatory Requirement: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that it is mandatory for a High Court to issue notice of application under Section 11 of the A&C Act and non-compliance of which would vitiate the entire proceeding for appointment of arbitrator. The bench of Justice Anand Pathak was hearing a review petition against an order by which the application under Section 11(6) was allowed and...

Application Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act Is Maintainable Despite The Pendency Of Reference Before The MSME Council: Jharkhand High Court

The High Court of Jharkhand has held that merely because a reference on the same issue is pending before the MSME Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, the same is not a bar to the application under Section 11 of the A&C Act for the appointment of the arbitrator. The Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad has held that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 11...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 24 July To 30 July, 2022

Bombay High Court: Pendency Of Arbitration Is Not A Bar To The Maintainability Of An Admiralty Suit For Arrest Of The Ship: Bombay High Court Case Title: Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. versus OSV Crest Mercury 1 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 270 The High Court of Bombay has held that the pendency of an arbitration proceeding between the parties on the same cause of action...

Pendency Of Arbitration Is Not A Bar To The Maintainability Of An Admiralty Suit For Arrest Of The Ship: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that the pendency of an arbitration proceeding between the parties on the same cause of action is not a bar to the institution of an admiralty suit. The Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar held that merely because the vessel owner has instituted an arbitration against the charterer, the same would not preclude the charterer from filing an admiralty suit...

Mentioning Referral Of The Matter To Arbitral Institution Is Sufficient; Party Not Required To Name Arbitrator: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a notice issued by a party, stating that the matter would be referred to the Council of Architecture, is sufficient for the purpose of invocation of the Arbitration Clause, since the Council of Architecture is an arbitral institution within the meaning of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Single Bench of Justice...

Order Of Facilitation Council, After Termination Of Conciliation Under MSMED Act, Not Executable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) after the termination of conciliation proceedings, without taking the dispute up for arbitration or referring it to an institution or centre for arbitration, is a nullity and does not constitute an arbitral...

The Arbitrator Cannot Alter The Express Terms Of The Agreement Between The Parties By Applying The Business Efficacy Test: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot alter the express terms of the agreement by applying the business efficacy test when there is no ambiguity as to the intention of the parties. The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that Penta Test as propounded by the Supreme Court in Nabha Power Ltd v. Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. is only for the purpose of determining...

Section 29A Of The A&C Act Applies Prospectively Does Not Apply To Arbitration That Commenced Before The 2015 Amendment: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that Section 29A of the A&C Act that provides a timeline of 12 months for passing an arbitral award would not apply to arbitration that commenced before the 2015 Amendment to the Act. The Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that provisions of Section 29A of the A&C Act, which was incorporated into the principal act via the 2015 Amendment...

Just Because Interlocutory Order Of Arbitral Tribunal Is Not Challengeable Under Section 34 Of A&C Act, Remedy Is Not Writ Under Article 226 And 227: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because an interlocutory order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is not amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the remedy under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be available against the said order. The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that...

When The Main Relief Is Rejected By The Arbitral Tribunal, Which Included Interim Relief ,The Interim Relief Granted In Isolation Is Incorrect: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that when the main relief claimed by the claimant has been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award an interim or ancillary amount, which is included under the same claim, in favour of the claimant. The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that when the main relief is rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, axiomatically,...

Sections 15 And 16 Of The MSMED Act Are Mandatory Provisions, Arbitrator Must Assign Reasons For Not Awarding Compound Interest: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has affirmed the order of the lower Court by which it had set aside an arbitral award for not awarding interest in terms of Sections 15 and 16 which are mandatory provisions of the MSMED Act. The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan held that once the arbitrator has held that MSMED Act applies to the dispute between the parties, it must...