Awarded Amount Cannot Be Enhanced Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that the District Judge, while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), is not empowered to increase the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. The findings of the Arbitrator with respect to the awarded amount can only be set aside if they contravene any of...

Limitation Cannot Be Decided As Preliminary Issue Without Recording Whether It Is A Mixed Question Of Law And Fact: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik has held that an arbitrator is not permitted to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue without first recording a finding as to whether it is a mixed question of law and fact that requires evidence to be led. It further held that if such a finding is not recorded and the issue is...

Bombay High Court Directs Developer Of Lodha Worli Towers To Collect Maintenance At Rate Agreed Upon Between Parties Until Arbitral Proceedings Are Completed

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan the developer of Lodha World Towers in a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) has been directed to charge the Federation Common Area Maintenance (FCAM) Charges at the rate agreed upon in the agreement executed between the parties, until the arbitral proceedings...

[Arbitration] Referral Court Should Limit Enquiry To Whether Plea Has Been Filed Within Limitation, Not Whether Claims Are Ex-Facie Time Barred: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that at the stage of appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, A&C, the referral court should limit its inquiry to whether the petition itself is within the limitation period of three years and should leave the question of whether the claims are deadwood to the arbitral tribunal. Facts The Petitioner...

S. 34(3) Arbitration Act | Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for challenging an arbitral award should not be rigidly interpreted as exactly 90 days, rather it should be interpreted as three calendar months. The Court upheld the filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act...

Delay In Receiving Award Due To Default In Paying Arbitral Fees Cannot Be Held Against Party Seeking To Challenge Award While Calculating Limitation: J&K HC

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that since the delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award was the mandatory requirement under the arbitration act therefore, the limitation for challenging the said award would arise only after the said signed copy is received by the party seeking to challenge the same.The petitioner had not received the certified copy of the award dated 01.03.2024...

Arbitration Clause Contained In Incomplete Memorandum Of Understanding Cannot Form Basis For Arbitration Proceedings: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an arbitration clause in a memorandum of understanding that was not finalized, as indicated by the correspondences between the parties, cannot serve as the basis for initiating arbitration proceedings. Brief Facts: In October 2020, the Respondent approached the petitioner and they reached an oral agreement with...

After Commencement Of Arbitration, Parties Must Wait Until Award Is Pronounced To File Challenge Unless Appeal Is Available At Earlier Stage: Kerala HC

The Kerela High Court Bench of Justice Basant Balaji has held that once the arbitration has commenced, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act, even at an earlier stage. Brief Facts of the case: The present dispute arose with respect to an agreement, for the construction of a Multidisciplinary...

Directions For Refund Of Consideration With Interest Must Be Considered Based On Conduct Of Parties During Arbitral Proceedings: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that in arbitral proceedings, the direction for refund of the deposited consideration amount with interest has to be considered in the background of the conduct of the parties and their admissions during the proceedings.A division bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Biswaroop Chowdury held:The learned arbitrator rejected the claim for specific performance of...

Court Can Decline To Refer Dispute To Arbitration When Time-Barred Claim Is Evident From Record: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when a claim is ex facie time-barred and no trial is needed to determine whether it is barred by limitation, the referral court can refuse to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Brief Facts: This application has been filed under section...

Composite Reference Of Disputes From Distinct Purchase Orders To Arbitration Is Valid When Parties' Conduct Indicates Single Transaction: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a composite reference of disputes to arbitration arising out of distinct purchase and service orders can be made when the conduct of the parties demonstrates that they were all part of a single business transaction. Brief Facts: The petitioner was engaged as an agent-cum-sub-contractor by the respondent,...

Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Decided Without Summoning Entire Record To Verify Service Of Notice: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be decided without first summoning the entire arbitration record to determine whether the notice was actually served on the other party. Brief Facts: Respondent No. borrowed a loan from the Appellant and when...