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...

Tenants Occupying Premises Which Fall Under Development Agreement Cannot Be Evicted U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that Eviction of tenants governed by the Rent Control Act cannot be sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), particularly when they are not parties to the Development Agreement executed between the Developer and the Landlords and are not being provided upgraded premises in...

Schedule IV Of Arbitration Act On Fees Of Arbitrator Does Not Mandatorily Apply To International Commercial Arbitrations: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that in an international commercial arbitration in terms of Section 2(1)(f)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the IVth Schedule pertaining to fees of the arbitrator will not apply mandatorily in view of Explanation to Section 11(14) of the Act. Facts The disputes between the parties arose out of...

Delay In Publication Does Not Invalidate Award Unless It Is Shown That The Award Has Materially Affected Rights Of Parties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma while dismissing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has observed that delay in publication of award does not invalidate the award unless it is shown that the award has materially affected the rights of the parties. Facts The Appellant was awarded a contract for work by the Respondent No....

Invocation Of Section 9 & Section 11 Of Arbitration Act Does Not Constitute Parallel Proceedings: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the mere invocation of Section 9 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not amount to parallel proceedings. Further, the High Court noted that Section 9 is intended to provide interim relief to safeguard the subject matter of arbitration. On the other hand, Section 11 is limited to...

Writ Petition Is Not An Appropriate Remedy To Seek Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. The court found merit in the preliminary objection of the Railways that a writ is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to seek enforcement of the...

Whether Rights In Favor Of Third Party Are Created In Property Which Is Subject Matter Of Arbitration Cannot Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Krishna S Dixit and Mr Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar has held that whether rights in favor of a third party based on sale deeds have been created in the property, which is the subject matter of arbitration, cannot be decided by the court under writ jurisdiction. Brief Facts: The petitioner is the third party purchaser of the plots in...

Unconditional Withdrawal Of Prior Petition Filed U/S 11 Of A&C Act Bars Subsequent Petition On Same Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that if a petition for appointment of arbitrator is withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition, then by application of Order 23 Rule 1(4), CPC, a subsequent petition on the same cause of action would be barred. Facts The contract between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 pertained to the construction of...

Executing Court Erred In Seeking Transfer Certificate To Execute Award When It Had Jurisidiction To Entertain Application: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Order

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha has held that the Executing Court had committed an error in directing to furnish the transfer certificate for executing an award when it already had jurisdiction to hear the application.Court said that when the property was situated in Jaipur, the executing court had jurisdiction to entertain the execution application. So,...

In Absence Of Separate 'Seat' Clause In Arbitral Agreement, Court Mentioned In 'Venue' Clause Has Exclusive Jurisdiction: Patna HC

The Patna High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar has held that in the absence of any clause in the agreement apart from Clause 36.3, which speaks of the “venue” being Delhi, there cannot be any other inference or intention of the parties for the “venue” and the “seat” being different. Additionally, the court noted that the agreement in question does...

MSME Council Cannot Pass Award On Account Of Failure Of Conciliation Proceedings, Has To Refer Matter To Arbitration: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council cannot pass an award on account of conciliation having failed without referring the matter to arbitration. Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing the petition filed by M/s Enmas GB Power Systems Projects Ltd. It said, “The matter is remitted to the Karnataka Micro and...

Force Majeure Clause 'Eclipses' Contractual Terms, Existence And Duration Of Force Majeure Event To Be Determined By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, courts cannot adopt the approach of one-size-fit-for-all. Courts can interfere into the award only if it shocks the conscience of the court and is prone to adversely affect the administration of justice. The court held that...