Referral Court Can Reject Arbitration Only In Exceptional Cases Where Plea Of Fraud Appears To Be Ex Facie Devoid Of Merit: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar observed that unless the arbitration agreement prima facie appeared to be inoperative on account of fraud, the referral Court should not indulge in a roving inquiry as such an inquiry is within the domain of the arbitrator. The fact whether the agreement was induced by fraud would entail a detailed consideration of the evidence lead...

Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Party : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm."An arbitration agreement does not cease to exist on the death of any party and the arbitration agreement can be enforced by or against the legal representatives of the deceased," the Court stated, referring to the judgment in Ravi...

When Application U/S 33 Of A&C Act Is 'Disguised Review', Limitation For Challenging Award U/S 34 Cannot Be Extended: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that if the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is purely an application for review, then the person seeking to challenge the award cannot avail of the time taken between the filing of the application under Section 33 and the date of disposal for calculating the period to challenge...

[Arbitration Act] Pre-Referral Jurisdiction Of Court U/S 11(6) Includes Inquiry On Whether Claims Are Ex-Facie & Hopelessly Time Barred: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that while the scope of adjudication by referral court is limited and entails a mere examination of whether the arbitration agreement exists or not, the referral court is not precluded from examining whether the claim is deadwood or ex facie barred. Background Facts The agreement between the parties was entered into...

Arbitral Award Not Signed By All Members Of Tribunal Can Be Set Aside If Reasons For Omission Of Missing Signature Are Not Stated: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the signature of all members of the arbitral tribunal should be available on the award as the signing of an award is not a ministerial act but a substantive requirement. It was further observed that if the signature of any member of the tribunal is omitted, then the reasons should be stated as this requirement...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [17th February-23rd February 2025]

High Courts Andra Pradesh High Court: Limitation For Appointment Of Arbitrator Commences From Date Of Failure To Comply With Requirements In Notice Invoking Arbitration: AP High Court Case Title: Alliance Enterprises v. Andhra Pradesh State Fiber Net Limited (APSFL) Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 48 of 2023 The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of...

Contractual Silence In Arbitration: Interplay Of Business Efficacy And Commercial Common Sense

Accuracy in the preparation of dispute resolution clauses in the hurly-burly world of business contracts is not only desirable but becomes a necessity. Arbitration, as a preferred mechanism for the resolution of commercial disputes, promises efficiency, confidentiality, and finality. But even the most advanced contracts can be marred by drafting oversights, leaving one to wonder whether...

MSMED Act Will Prevail Over Arbitration Act In Disputes Pertaining To A Party Which Is An MSME: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a general law governing the field of arbitration whereas the MSMED Act, 2006 governing a very specific nature of disputes concerning MSMEs, is a specific law and being a specific law would prevail over Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Background...

Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge Against Arbitral Award Rejecting Counterclaim For Failure To Raise Timely Objections On Quality Of Goods

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has upheld an Arbitral award stating that objections regarding the quality of goods must be raised within a reasonable time as per section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The court concurred with the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that since the Petitioner failed to dispute the quality of supplies within a reasonable time,...

Named Arbitrator Cannot Be Replaced Unless There Is Evidence Of Partiality Or Bias Against Them: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has held that the request for seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator other than the named arbitrator cannot be entertained if there is no evidence to show that the named arbitrator would act in a partial or biased manner. ' Brief Facts: M/s. Kranthi Grand DKNV Hospitalities (Applicant) entered into...

Limitation For Appointment Of Arbitrator Commences From Date Of Failure To Comply With Requirements In Notice Invoking Arbitration: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has held that the limitation period for filing an application seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, commences only after a notice invoking arbitration has been issued by one of the parties and there has been either a failure or refusal on the part...

[Arbitration Act] Referral Courts Can't Indulge In Enquiry Into Whether Claims Are Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that in an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 996, it would not be proper for the referral court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner were time-barred or not. “Courts, at the referral stage, can interfere only...