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...

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...