Even In The Absence Of An Arbitration Agreement, The Matter Can Be Referred To Arbitration Under Section 18 Of The MSMED Act: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that even in the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the matter can be referred to arbitration under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). The Single Bench of Justice Lisa Gill reiterated that the MSMED Act being a Special Act shall prevail over the Arbitration...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: June 5 To June 11, 2022

Bombay High Court: A Reference To Arbitration Can Be Declined By The Court If The Dispute Is A Deadwood: Bombay High Court Case Title: D.K. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Kishore Agarwal and Anr. The Bombay High Court has held that once the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the Court can decline to make a...

A Party Cannot Circumvent The Dispute Resolution Process After Agreeing On The Same: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that a party cannot circumvent the dispute resolution process after agreeing on the same. The Court held that party is bound to follow the mechanism provided under the arbitration clause that requires it to first raise the dispute before the DRC and pre-deposit the amount in dispute if no challenge is made to the validity of terms of...

Landlord-Tenant Disputes Governed By Transfer Of Property Act Are Arbitrable In Nature: Reiterates Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable in nature. The Single Bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia versus Durga Trading Corporation (2020) had overruled its decision in Himangi Enterprises versus Amaljit Singh Ahulvalia (2017)....

A Reference To Arbitration Can Be Declined By The Court If The Dispute Is A Deadwood: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that once the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the Court can decline to make a reference to arbitration only if it is satisfied that the dispute is non-existent or that it has become a deadwood. The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar reiterated that the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6) of...

Petition Under S. 11(6) Of The A&C Act Would Be Premature When The Precondition Of Conciliation Is Not Fulfilled: Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka held that the petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act would be premature when the parties have not complied with the precondition of conciliation. The Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi dismissed the arbitration petition for the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the petitioner had directly approached the Court without taking...

Party Can Raise Additional Grounds Based On The Award Passed After The Case Is Remitted To Tribunal Under Section 34(4) Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, after the matter is remanded back to it by the Court under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), is not a fresh arbitral award that can be challenged by filing a separate petition under Section 34(1). The Court observed that during the pendency of the proceedings...

The Evolving Jurisprudence Of Enforceability Of Interim Arbitral Awards

The 246th report of the Law Commission made certain recommendations to amend section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with an intent to strengthen this provision which provides for statutory mechanism for the enforcement of the interim measures by arbitral tribunal on the pretext that earlier there was no comprehensive mechanism to enforce the interim measures awarded by the tribunal. These amendments sought to provide the much needed...

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Modified By Executing Court On The Basis Of Just A Memo: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that in the absence of an application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for correction of typographical errors in the arbitral award, the Court cannot pass an order modifying and correcting the arbitral award on the basis of a Memo filed before it by a party. The Single Bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh...

Order Passed By The Arbitrator Allowing Meetings As Per Convenience Of Parties, Would Not Change The Seat Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by the Arbitrator holding that the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted at any other place, would not change the seat of Arbitration as provided in the Arbitration Clause. The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the Arbitrator cannot decide anything contrary to what has been decided by the parties. The petitioner...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 29th May To 4th June, 2022

Allahabad High Court Section 47 CPC Application Is Not Maintainable In Execution Proceedings UnderArbitration Act, 1940: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Bharat Pumps and Compressors versus Chopra Fabricators Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269 The Allahabad High Court has held that an application under Section 47 of the CPC is not maintainable in the execution proceedings...

Award Cannot Be Remitted To The Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 34 (4) Of The A&C Act, If No Reasons and Findings Are Recorded: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the arbitral award cannot be remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) if there are no findings recorded in the arbitral award on the contentious issues. The Single Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur reiterated that discretionary powers under Section 34 (4) of the...