Arbitration
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...
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...