Arbitration
No Claim Certificate Is Invalid If It Is A Pre-Condition To The Release Of Final Payment: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that a discharge voucher or No Claim Certificate would be invalid on account of 'Coercion' if it is submitted as a pre-condition to the release of final payment. The Bench of Justice Krishna Rao held that a situation where the employer denies the payment of dues to the contractor unless it submits an undertaking to the employer not to make any...
Similar Matters Pending Before The Facilitation Council Under The MSME Act; Parties Can Be Referred To Arbitration: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that merely because one of the parties has approached the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) for adjudication of a similar dispute, the application for appointment of arbitrator cannot be held to be not maintainable. The Single Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that in view of...
A Party Can Withdraw Its Consent For Reference To Arbitration Under Section 89 Of The CPC Anytime Before The Court Acts Upon Such Consent: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that a party can withdraw its consent for reference to arbitration under Section 89 of CPC anytime before the court has acted upon such a reference. The Bench of Justice Umesh A. Trivedi was dealing with a Special Civil Application under Article 227 against an order of the Civil Judge whereby the application jointly given by the parties to the...
Section 11(6A) Arbitration Act Does Not Prevent Courts From Considering Issue Of Arbitrability : Supreme Court
Despite the insertion of Section 11(6A) in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Courts are not denuded of the power to examine the issue of non-arbitrability and jurisdiction at the stage of considering application of appointment of arbitrators under Section 11, held the Supreme Court recently.In this case Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NCC Limited, the Supreme Court...
An Enabling Clause Does Not Constitute A Binding Arbitration Agreement Between The Parties: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that once the parties have agreed to use the word 'may', the parties have conferred a discretion to enter into an arbitration agreement in the future; and that such an enabling clause does not constitute any binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The Single Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni held that the use of the word "may" does not bring...
Court While Deciding 'Section 11' Application Seeking Appointment Of Arbitrator Can Consider Whether Dispute Falls Within 'Excepted Clause' : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that, at the stage of deciding application for appointment of arbitrator, a Court can consider whether the dispute falls within the excepted clause.The court observed that the question of jurisdiction and non-Âarbitrability can be considered by a Court at the stage of deciding an application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the facts are very...
Non Applicability Of Section 9 Of The A&C Act Can't Be Presumed If Parties Opted For Foreign-Seated Institutional Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, they cannot be presumed to have entered into an agreement to exclude the applicability of Section 9 of the A&C Act as provided under the proviso to Section 2(2) of the A&C Act. The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Narula held that the words...
Application Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act For Pre-Award Relief Can Be Filed In A Court Where The Assets Of The Respondent Are Located: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act for pre-award relief can also be filed before the Court where the assets of the respondent are located. The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the Court for the purpose of Section 9 application in a foreign seated arbitration would be as provided under Section 47 of the...
CPC Contemplates Execution Of A Foreign Decree And Not An Order: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that remedy before the foreign arbitral tribunal would not be inefficacious when the bulk of the assets of a party are located in India as the interim order in a foreign-seated arbitration is not enforceable under the A&C Act. The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula also held that an interim award passed in arbitration with seat in India is...
Once The Right To Refer The Dispute To Arbitration Is Waived By A Party, It Cannot Be Reclaimed: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if a party has disputed the arbitrability of a dispute raised by the opposite party, in its reply to the notice invoking the arbitration clause, it is deemed to have waived its right to seek the reference of the dispute to arbitration. The Court added that if a right is once waived by a party, it cannot be allowed to be reclaimed and hence, the...
The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Construed To Mean That The Court Has Concurred With The View Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High CourtThe High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the challenge to an arbitral award is dismissed by the Court exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not mean that the court has...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 10th July To 16th 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...