Arbitration
Appeal Against Order U/S 39(2) Arbitration Act Is Not Maintainable U/S 13 Commercial Courts Act: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), holding that no appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act lies against an order passed under section 39(2) of the Act. The court further held that the appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act is maintainable against those orders...
Award Passed After Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate Is Non-Est, Court Can't Extend Mandate Post-Award: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that an award passed after expiry of the arbitrator's mandate is non-est and unforceable holding that the court has no power to extend the mandate post award if no application seeking extension of the mandate was pending before the award was passed. A Division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the award becomes operational...
Order Terminating Arbitration For Non-Filing Of Statement Of Claim Is Not 'Award', Cannot Be Challenged U/S 34 A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that an order terminating arbitral proceedings under section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) on account of non-filing of statement of claim does not amount to an arbitral award and therefore cannot be challenged under section 34. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that “the Award can only be considered to be an award once...
Principles Of Natural Justice Are Non-Negotiable In Arbitral Proceedings Even If Tribunal Is Comprised Of Lay Persons: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court, while setting aside an arbitral award, has observed that despite the arbitral Tribunal comprising elder family members, who are lay persons and not well-trained legal minds, the principles of natural justice have to be followed. If an award is passed without giving an opportunity to either of the sides to present their case, the same would violate...
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹75 Lakh Compensation Awarded Against Hersheys India In Jumpin Drink Manufacturing Dispute
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside a Rs 75 lakh compensation awarded to Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd. against Hersheys India Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over the contract to manufacture and package the fruit drink brand Jumpin. The court said the compensation was “picked virtually out of the hat” and had no basis.A single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, in an order made available...
Deliberate Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Not Grounds To Resist Enforcement Of Award: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that when a party purposely fails to avail an opportunity duly accorded by the Arbitral Tribunal to present its case, it cannot later use its own default as a ground to resist enforcement of the resultant award. Facts The Petitioner, M/s Vittera BV (“Vittera”) filed the present petition seeking enforcement...
Arbitrators Cannot Be Disqualified For Merely Participating In Prior Arbitration Involving Interpretation Of Similar Clause: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) filed by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) against an arbitral award passed in favor of British Marine PLC.(Respondent). SAIL entered into Contract of Affreightment (COA) with the respondent for transportation of 3 million metric tonnes (±5%) of coking coal over five...
Rajasthan High Court Declares GAFTA London Award Enforceable As Decree; Reiterates Narrow Scope Of “Public Policy” U/S 48 Arbitration Act
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed objections against the enforcement of a foreign award raised by Raj Grow Impex LLP stating that the scope of interference is extremely narrow at the enforcement stage and that an award holder having won before both the tribunal and appellate tribunals should not be left to feel that he has won the battle but lost the war. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand...
Court May Direct Deposit Of 100% Of Awarded Amount Before Granting Stay U/S 36(3) Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court held that directing a 100% deposit of the awarded amount as a pre-condition for granting stay under section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) is legally valid and consistent with the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi held that “where the arbitral award is in the nature of a money decree,...
Limitation Commences When Award Is Received By Authority Competent To Decide On Challenging It U/S 34 A&C Act: Manipur High Court
The Manipur High Court held that in abitration cases, in case of government entities, the limitation period commences from the date when the award is received by the person who is competent to take decision on whether to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and not merely when the award is emailed or received by the counsel. A bench...