Arbitration Half Yearly Digest 2025- Part 2

Supreme Court Arbitral Tribunal Can Proceed Against Party Though They Weren't Served With S.21 Notice Or Made Party In S.11 Application : Supreme Court Case Title: ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5297 OF 2025 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 439 The Supreme Court recently observed that not being served with the...

Court Can Extend Mandate Of Arbitrator Multiple Times If Sufficient Cause Is Shown U/S 29A(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the courts are not prohibited from extending the mandate of the Arbitrator multiple times if sufficient cause is established under section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, it extended the mandate of the Arbitrator beyond the timeline set by the Supreme Court. This is the second filed by the Petitioner...

Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Favour Of Sourav Ganguly Over Termination Of Player Representation Agreement

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur dismissed a Section 34 petition filed against an arbitral award passed in favour of cricket player Sourav Ganguly (“Respondent”) by his former management agency, Precept Talent Management Ltd. (“Petitioner”). While upholding the Arbitral Award, the Court observed that the award was well reasoned and the views taken by...

Impleading Non-Signatory Against Whom No Cause Of Action Is Disclosed Does Not Defeat Reference To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

The Division Bench of Calcutta High comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar while deciding an appeal under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) against the dismissal of an application for reference under Section 8, ACA observed that where a non-signatory party has been impleaded against whom no cause of action has been disclosed in the suit and who...

Clause Saying Arbitration "May Be Sought" Doesn't Constitute A Binding Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a clause in an agreement that arbitration "may be sought" to resolve disputes between the parties will not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.Approving the refusal of the High Court to refer the parties to arbitartion, the Supreme Court observed that the phraseology of the clause did not indicate that the parties were bound to go...

Arbitration Can't Be Restricted To Specific Respondents When Agreements Form Part Of Single Commercial Transaction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that when an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed in opposition to a civil suit, a party cannot later object that the arbitration was intended to apply only to specific respondents, especially when the pleadings indicate that the agreements formed part of a single...

Arbitration Half Yearly Digest 2025- Part 1

Supreme Court High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse : Supreme Court Case Title: SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14 The Supreme Court today criticized the High Court's intervention under its Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitral...

Member Of Society Can Be Directed To Vacate Premises U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act For Smooth Redevelopment: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that a member of a society can be directed to vacate the premises occupied by them under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to ensure smooth redevelopment, if they act contrary to the terms of the Development Agreement These Appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and...

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Of About ₹229.5 Crores Against NHAI As 'Termination Payment'

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has upheld an Arbitral Award directing the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”/”Petitioner”) to deposit ₹229.50 crores as Termination Payment into the Escrow Account along with interest and costs. The court reiterated that the scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

Direction Of Disclosure Or Attachment Of Assets Cannot Be Passed Against A Person Who Is Not A Party To The Arbitral Award: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that a foreign arbitral award cannot be enforced against a person who was not a party to the arbitration proceedings. It ruled that forcing such a person to disclose assets or face coercive enforcement would be without jurisdiction under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan passed the ruling while allowing two...

Parties Can't Be Barred From Performing Contractual Obligations In Final Partial Award When It Remains In Force: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that parties cannot be prevented from performing their contractual obligations as interpreted in the Final Partial Award, especially when both the Final Partial Award as well as the contract interpreted therein have not been stayed and remain in force. The present appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration...

Bar Against Even Number Of Arbitrators Is Not Attracted In Case Of Statutory Arbitration U/S 18(3) Of MSMED Act: Calcutta HC

A division bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justices Uday Kumar and Sabyasachi Bhattacharya in a notable judgment has observed that the bar restricting the number of arbitrators to even numbers, which is applicable when the parties themselves appoint arbitrators under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”), is not attracted to a statutory arbitration under Section...