Arbitration
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...
Court Cannot Appoint Arbitrator In Absence Of Arbitration Agreement Between Disputing Parties: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has held that Court cannot appoint an arbitrator to resolve dispute between the parties in absence of any arbitration agreement. The Single Bench of Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha (as the Judge then was) referred to Section 11(6-A) (appointment of arbitrators) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to hold that –“Reference to arbitration can only be compelled...
Power To Issue Interim Orders U/S 9 Of A&C Act Not Confined Solely To Orders Which Can Be Passed Under O.39 R.1 & 2: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the powers of the court to order interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the Act are wide and are not confined solely to orders that can be passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the court would be guided by the principles underlying the Code....
Acceptance Of Goods Delivered Under Tax Invoice Amounts To Accepting Terms Governing It, Including Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the arbitration clause contained in the tax invoice itself is clear to the extent that acceptance of subject goods delivered under the invoice would amount to accepting the terms governing it, including the arbitration clause contained therein. Brief Facts of the case: The respondent along with his son, entered into...
Court Cannot Interfere In Arbitration Proceedings At Final Stage, When Sufficient Opportunity Has Been Given To Claimant To Inspect Documents: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain has upheld the order passed by the Arbitrator whereby an application seeking production of certain documents has been dismissed. The court held that sufficient opportunity had been given to the claimant, but he didn't avail that opportunity. Thus, the court cannot interfere with the order of the arbitrator at the final...
Prescribing Pre-Qualification Criteria By Authority In Tender Document Cannot Be Considered Arbitrary If Conditions Are Reasonable: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das has held that the imposition of pre-qualification conditions by the tender-inviting authority cannot be interfered with by the courts when sufficient guidelines have been provided in the tender documents on how the authority's discretion shall be exercised. Brief...
Second Execution Petition Cannot Be Entertained When First Petition Seeking Execution Of Arbitral Award Was Dismissed On Merits: Andhra Pradesh HC
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has held that a second execution petition for enforcing an award is not maintainable if the first was rejected on the ground that the award had not been set aside, solely because a signed copy was not filed with the application to set it aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...
Proceedings Before Registrar U/S 62 Of AP Cooperative Societies Act Not Arbitration, Provisions Of A&C Act Will Not Apply: Andhra Pradesh HC
The division bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam has observed that when proceedings are held before the Registrar under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, such proceedings cannot be termed as arbitral proceedings.Accordingly, it was held that no provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 including...
Party Nominating Arbitrator In Response To Notice U/S 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Prohibited From Raising Plea Of Limitation In Petition U/S 11: Madras HC
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once a party nominates an arbitrator in response to a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), it cannot later argue in a petition under Section 11 of the Act that the claim for which the notice was issued is time-barred. Brief Facts: The petition has been...
Order Rejecting Jurisdictional Objections U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act Can Be Challenged U/S 34, Not Under Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao has held that an order rejecting jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can only be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration Act after an award is passed, and no writ petition against such an order can...
Execution Of Gift Deed After Arbitral Award Was Passed Indicates Attempt To Frustrate Rights Of Decree Holder, Not Bona Fide Conduct: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the execution of the Gift Deed by the petitioner after an arbitral award is passed suggests an attempt to frustrate the rights of the decree-holder. Also, the court held that the manner in which the Gift Deed has been executed by the parents clearly suggests that the sole objective was to somehow thwart and defeat the...
Arbitrator's Decision To Postpone Issue Of Partnership Firm's Dissolution To Stage Of Final Hearing Not Perverse: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that the decision of the Arbitrator to postpone the issue of determining the date of dissolution of the partnership firm to the stage of final hearing cannot be considered perverse for the purpose of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), as it requires evidence to...









