Arbitration
Res Judicata Not Applicable To Subsequent Arbitral Proceedings If First Award Was Set Aside Due To Incompetence Of Tribunal: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no legal impediment for arbitrating parties to initiate fresh proceedings if the district court sets aside an award on any issue not yet concluded in that award. This implies that the principles of res judicata will have only a limited application in such proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.A Division Bench of Justice P.B....
Manifest Intention To Arbitrate Is A Sine Qua Non For Filing An Application Under S.9 Before The Commencement Of The Arbitration: Madras High Court
The High Court of Madras has held that manifest intention to arbitrate is a sine qua non for filing an application under S. 9 before the commencement of the arbitration. No interim relief can be granted if the intention to arbitrate is missing. The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that manifest intention to arbitrate is a jurisdictional fact that must precede the application...
Electricity Act Will Not Apply When Contract Is For Supply Of Materials Simplicitor, Court Can Apppoint Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the embargo under S.86 of the Electricity Act which provides that only the Regulatory Commission can appoint an arbitrator does not apply when the agreement is for supply simpliciter and does not have an element of transmission, distribution, and trading of electricity and the Court can appoint an arbitrator in such cases. The Single Bench...
Right Of A Party To File Counter Claims Exists Independently Of Any Liberty Granted To It By The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that any matter on which the Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass a final award can also be the subject of an interim award made by it, and the same can be challenged before the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that the right of a party to...
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Award Interest On Interest: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has observed that the arbitral tribunal cannot award interest on the amount of interest already granted in the award. It held that pendente lite interest on the amount of awarded interest amounts to awarding of interest on interest. The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru has held that when the arbitrator has awarded interest on a substantive claim, allowing...
Execution Proceedings Not Maintainable Against Decision Of Court In A Petition Filed Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that a Civil Court does not have the power to modify an arbitral award in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to set aside an arbitral award. The Bench, consisting of Justice P. Naveen Rao and Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, ruled that execution proceedings are not maintainable with respect to...
Arbitral Tribunal Can't Direct Interim Deposit Of Amount In Dispute When Liability To Pay Is Seriously Disputed : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot pass an order by way of interim measure under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to deposit the amount involved in the dispute, in a case where the liability to pay such an amount is seriously disputed and the same is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. A Bench comprising Justices...
Arbitrators Must Say Upfront Their Fees For The Number Of Sittings, Opines Supreme Court During Hearing
The Supreme Court on Tuesday continued the hearing on the issue of fixation of standards for fees for arbitrators. The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant was considering the issue regarding the mandatory nature of the 'model' fee scale for arbitrators prescribed under the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. In the...
Court Lacking Jurisdiction To Appoint An Arbitrator, Cannot Do So Based No Objection By The Opposite Party: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Court cannot appoint an Arbitrator when the only proceeding before it is an application for grant of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), solely on the ground that the opposite party has not objected to the appointment of an Arbitrator. The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that...
Application For Extension Of Time For Passing The Award Lies Only Before The High Court Which Appointed The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Court for the purpose of an application under S. 29A of the A&C Act would only be the High Court that appointed the arbitrator. The Single Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that the Principal Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for an extension of time. The Court held that Sub-section 6 of...
Arbitration Award Can't Be Challenged In Different Jurisdiction Stating That There Was No Arbitration Agreement: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that even if a party disputes the existence of an arbitration agreement, an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to set aside an arbitral award cannot be filed in a Court not having jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement, solely on the ground that cause of action arose within...
Weekly Digest Of Arbitration Cases: April 10 To April 17, 2022
Bombay High Court 1. Writ Petitions On The Ground Of 'Exceptional Circumstances' Against Order Passed By The Arbitral Tribunal Not Maintainable: Bombay High Court Case Title: Tagus Engineering Private Limited & Ors. versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr. and IDFC First Bank Limited versus Bell Invest India Limited & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 127 The...