Arbitration
Void Ab Initio Appointment Of Arbitrator, The Court Has Jurisdiction Under Section 11 Of A&C Act To Appoint A New Arbitrator: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ruled that once the appointment of arbitrator is void ab initio and the arbitrator is ineligible by virtue of Section 12 (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), then the procedure prescribed under Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the A&C Act for challenging the appointment of an arbitrator are not applicable. The Single Bench...
Monthly Digest Of Arbitration Cases- April 2022
Supreme Court Arbitrators Must Say Upfront Their Fees For The Number Of Sittings, Opines Supreme Court During Hearing Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. versus Afcons Gunanusa The Supreme Court, while hearing on the issue of fixation of standards for fees for arbitrators, has emphasized on "upfront" fixation of arbitrator's fee. The Bench of Justices D.Y....
S.11 Arbitration & Conciliation Act | Not Necessary To Go Into Merits Of Claim/ Counter-Claim For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, High Court is not to go into the merits of the claim or the counter-claim, if any, of the parties.Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that the High Court has to examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and there...
Agreement On The Name Of The Arbitrator Would Not Amount To A Waiver Of Notice Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court
The High Court of Bombay has held that simply because the arbitration agreement provides for the name of the arbitrator, the same would not amount to a waiver of notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar has held that the use of the word "Unless otherwise agreed by the parties" in Section 21 means that the parties can dispense with...
The Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Reduce The Liquidated Damages On 'Guess Work': Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held the arbitral tribunal cannot reduce the liquidated damages on 'guesswork' if it finds that it is genuine pre-estimated damages and it is not possible to quantify the damages. The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru held that once the arbitrator finds that the employer has suffered substantial losses due to the fault of the contractor and the contract...
Arbitral Award Not Hit By Adequacy Facet If Reasons Given Are Not Laconic: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award cannot be set aside on the ground of non-adequacy of reasons as long as the reasons given are not laconic. The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar ruled that being 'tersely eloquent' is not alien to judgment writing. A contract was awarded to the respondent M/s Progressive-Aliens by the petitioner Southern Railways for...
Section 34 Proceedings Are Summary In Nature; Does Not Permit Additional Evidence To Be Filed Unless Absolutely Necessary: Madras High Court
The High Court of Madras has held that the challenge proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act are summary in nature, therefore, the same shall be decided based on the record that was available with the arbitral tribunal and no additional document shall be permitted to be brought in at that stage unless absolutely warranted. The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar further held...
Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Overrides The Seat Clause In An Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has given primacy to an exclusive jurisdiction clause over the seat clause in an arbitration agreement. The Court held that when a clause confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court other than the seat court, then only the court on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred shall decide all the applications arising out of the arbitration...
Arbitration Involving Third Parties And Leading To Other Proceedings - Not Arbitrable : Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that reference of a dispute to arbitration cannot be allowed if it would lead to splitting up of the cause of action and cause determination on matters which were not contemplated for arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad held that there cannot be a complete adjudication of the claimant's rights unless the third parties were...
Group Of Companies Doctrine Can Be Applied To Bind Non Signatory To An Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday (27 April 2022), explained the 'Group of companies' doctrine which postulates that an arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated,...
Parties Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration In Absence Of Privity Of Contract: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has ruled that in the absence of a privity of contract parties cannot be referred to arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the word 'party' under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) has been given a definite meaning with respect to an arbitration agreement. The Court added that only the disputes between...
Merely Because An Application Under Section 7 Of IBC Is Filed, It Is Not An Embargo On The Court Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court
The High Court of Bombay has held that merely because an application under S.7 of IBC is filed before the adjudicating authority which is pending consideration does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application filed under S. 11 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni has held that an application filed under S.7 of the IBC creates an...