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...

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...