Arbitration
[Arbitration Act] S.37 Not An Efficacious Alternate Remedy After Rejection Of Plea U/S 34 Seeking Enhanced Compensation: Bombay High Court
The Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justices Jitendra Jain and M.S. Sonak allowed writ petitions seeking enhanced solatium under National Highways Act, 1956 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Tarsem Singh and Ors. While doing so the Court rejected the argument of the Respondent that the petitions ought to be dismissed as the Petitioners...
Execution Of Discharge Voucher Not A Bar To Claim Higher Compensation If Provided For By IRDA Circular: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that once the liability or quantum of a claim under an insurance policy is established, the Insurance Company must not withhold the claim amount and must comply with Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Circular which entitles the Insured to claim a higher amount. It further held that the Circular...
Appointment Of Arbitrator As 'Observer' In Another Matter Does Not Render Him Ineligible Under 5th & 7th Schedule Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the appointment of an arbitrator as an observer in a matter unrelated to the arbitration dispute does not constitute de facto or de jure ineligibility under the Fifth or Seventh Schedules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Consequently, the arbitrator's mandate cannot be terminated on this...
Intent Of S.11(6) Of Arbitration Act Is Not To Confer Jurisdiction On Courts Incompetent To Entertain Such Applications: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the intent of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be interpreted to confer jurisdiction on a court that is otherwise incompetent to entertain an application under this provision. Brief Facts: The present petitions arise from two Home Loan Agreements dated 31.03.2018...
If No Bonafide Negotiations Occur After Arbitration Notice, Period Cannot Be Excluded From Limitation: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that if, after the issuance of a notice invoking arbitration, no bonafide negotiations take place between the parties, and the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) expires, the time allegedly spent in such negotiations cannot be excluded...
Questions On Legality Of Revival Of Arbitral Proceedings To Be Adjudicated By Tribunal U/S 16 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while hearing a writ petition challenging the decision of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Respondent No. 1) to revive arbitral proceeding after closing the proceedings due to non-filing of the State of Claim (SOC) observed that since the proceedings have been revived, the Arbitral Tribunal is the competent authority to...
Appointing Arbitrator U/S 3(G)(5) Of National Highways Act Does Not Constitute Seat Of Arbitration, Is Rather A Convenient Venue: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench at Gwalior of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke has observed that appointment of arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5), National Highways Act, 1956 (“NH Act”) will not amount to the seat of the arbitrator rather it would be a convenient venue and therefore courts where a part of cause of action had arisen will also have jurisdiction over such...
All Trademark Disputes Aren't Outside Arbitration; In Personam Issues Relating To License Agreement Arbitrable : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that a mere allegation of fraud or misconduct does not divest an arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to adjudicate in personam disputes stemming from contractual relationships governed by an arbitration agreement.“The law is well settled that allegations of fraud or criminal wrongdoing or of statutory violation would not detract from the jurisdiction of...
Repetition Of Old & Overruled Arguments Not Sufficient To Reopen Concluded Adjudications In Review Petition Assailing Arbitration Order: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke has held that repetition of old and overruled arguments is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications as the review proceedings under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC challenging an arbitration order cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The scope of review is very limited. Brief Facts of...
Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Must Be Sought With 'Reasonable Expedition': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh Patil have held that an applicant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) must approach the court with reasonable expedition. Delay of several years without adequate explanation is a material factor that militates against the grant of such relief. The court observed that...
No Damages For Loss Of Profit In Absence Of Proof Of Missed Profitable Ventures Due To Delay In Contractual Payment: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that unless it is demonstrated that the delay in payment for the completion of the work contract prevented the contractor from undertaking other profitable ventures, damages for loss of profits cannot be awarded. Brief Facts: The impugned arbitral award arose from disputes under a contract dated...
Waiver To Section 12(5) Of Arbitration Act Has To Be Given After Constitution Of The Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Th Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the party giving no-objection to the applicability of Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) has to give such no-objection after the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The waiver to applicability has to be done after the arbitrators are appointed with the names and details. The Court...

![[Arbitration Act] S.37 Not An Efficacious Alternate Remedy After Rejection Of Plea U/S 34 Seeking Enhanced Compensation: Bombay High Court [Arbitration Act] S.37 Not An Efficacious Alternate Remedy After Rejection Of Plea U/S 34 Seeking Enhanced Compensation: Bombay High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/10/17/500x300_566535-justices-mahesh-sonak-and-jitendra-jain-bombay-hc.webp)








