Arbitration
Use Of The Word 'Seat' Is Not Compulsory In An Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that the use of word 'seat' in an arbitration clause is not compulsory to determine the jurisdiction of the Court(s) which would have jurisdiction over the proceedings arising out of the arbitration agreement. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that there would be no seat and venue dichotomy when the jurisdiction conferred on other courts is...
Decision Of Arbitral Tribunal To Not Implead A Party To Arbitration Is Not An 'Interim Award': Delhi High Court
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that a decision of the arbitral tribunal to refuse to implead a party to the arbitral proceedings does not constitute an 'Interim Award' which can be directly challenged under Section 34 of the Act pending arbitral proceedings. Facts The parties entered into a concession agreement dated 15.07.2011....
Suo Moto Extension Of Limitation By Supreme Court| The Balance Days Of Limitation Left On 15.03.2020 Would Become Available W.E.F. 01.03.2022: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that the balance days of limitation which were available to a party on 15.03.2020 would become available with effect from 01.03.2022, which is the day on which the benefit of the Suo Moto Extension by the Supreme Court expired. The bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act would not be time barred...
Registration Of Shares In Favor Of The Pledgee As The "Beneficial Owner" Does Not Amount To A Sale Of Shares: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere registration of shares in favor of the pledgee as the "beneficial owner" does not amount to a sale of shares, and the pledgee is not required to account for any sale proceeds until the shares are actually sold to a third party. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the pledgee's right of redemption of shares remains...
Final Determination On Question Of Arbitrability Should Be Made By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that final determination on the issue of arbitrability of the dispute and the subject matter should be made by the arbitrator. It held that the scope of Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the agreement. The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the Court can...
Arbitrator Committed No Illegality In Accepting A Claim In Toto When No Written Statement Of Defence Was Filed: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Division Bench of Justices Arun Palli and Vikram Aggarwal of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that an arbitration award cannot be considered patently illegal due to arbitrator's acceptance of a claim in toto if the respondent did not file any written statement of defence nor led any evidence to contest the claimed amount. Facts The respondent (The...
Writ Petition Cannot Be Entertained To Challenge An Arbitral Award, Statutory Remedy Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Must Be Availed: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that a writ petition filed to challenge an arbitral award is not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh held that a writ petition should be dismissed in limine when there is a...
30 Days Grace Period Expired During Court Break, Section 34 Petition Can't Be Entertained Even If Filed On Reopening: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that a Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot be entertained by the Court even if the 30 days condonable grace period given under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act expired during the Court breaks and the petition was filed on the date on which the Court reopened. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju...
Arbitration Quarterly Digest 2024
Supreme Court Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Modified Under Sections 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court Case Title: S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14 The Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law that any attempt to “modify an award” while adjudicating Sections 34 and 37 petitions is not...
Group Of Companies | Absence Of Specific Prayer For Impleadment Of Non-Signatory Doesn't Preclude Arbitral Tribunal From Applying GOC: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R I Chagla held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the Arbitration Agreement and to implead the non-signatory. The Court held that the absence of a specific prayer for the impleadment of a non-signatory in a Section 11 Application does not preclude the application of the 'group...
Whether Non-Filing Of 'Statement Of Truth' Along With A Petition U/S 34 Of A&C Act Makes The Filing Non-Est? Delhi High Court Refers Question To Larger Bench For Clarification In View Of Conflicting Views
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has referred the question 'Whether non-filing of statement of truth with a Challenge Petition would make the filing non-est' to a larger bench in view of conflicting views taken by two Division Benches. Facts The impugned award was passed on 24.07.2023. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner challenged it under Section 34...
Delhi High Court Directs Google To Maintain Status Quo In An Advertisement Agreement, Citing Irreparable Loss Due To Ad Blockage
The High Court of Delhi has directed Google India to maintain status quo in respect of advertisement displayed on its platforms by observing that the main revenue for a party in an advertisement agreement comes from the ad revenue and en masse blocking of ads would result in irreparable loss to that party. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh also reiterated that a Section...