When There Is Ambiguity In Arbitration Agreement, Business Efficacy Test Can Applied To Discern Intent Of Parties To Arbitrate: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that when there is an ambiguity in the agreement with respect to arbitration related provisions, the business efficacy test can be applied to discern true intent of the parties to arbitrate. Brief Facts: The present petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against IRCTC In Dispute Over Reimbursement For Catering Services, Sets Aside Interest As 'Patently Illegal'

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has reiterated the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”). The court upheld the arbitral award granted in favour of M/s Brandavan Food Products Ltd. (“Claimant”) in a dispute regarding the reimbursement of...

Mandate Of Facilitation Council Is Not Terminated Even If It Fails To Render Award Within 90 Days U/S 18(5) Of MSME Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council (Council) cannot be terminated merely on the ground that it failed to render an award within 90 days under section 18(5) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”) from the date of entering reference as this time period is...

Award Cannot Be Set Aside When No Objections Were Raised Before Arbitrator Or Court U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the award cannot be set aside solely on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator was illegal in view of section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act) when no such objections were raised before the Arbitrator or the court under section 34 of the Arbitration...

'Oral Undertaking Falls Within Scope Of Arbitration Clause' : Supreme Court Upholds Award Against Husband For Operation In Wife's Demat Account

The Supreme Court today (February 10) held that an oral contract undertaking joint and several liability falls within the scope of an arbitration clause.Holding so , the Court affirmed an arbitral award against a husband, finding him jointly liable for the award due to a debit balance in a joint demat account registered in his wife's name.The Court rejected the contention that the...

Execution Proceedings Can't Be Quashed Solely Due To Non-Supply Of Signed Arbitral Award: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey has held that non-supply of the signed arbitral award may be a ground for setting aside an award, but on this ground alone, the execution proceedings cannot be quashed. Brief Facts The petitioner purchased a vehicle through a hire purchase agreement with respondent No.1/bank. The petitioner failed to make payment...

Power Of Court To Modify An Arbitral Award – A Legal Quagmire

The issue whether courts can modify arbitral awards in exercise of their powers under Sec. 34 and Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'ACA') has been a long standing issue of debate within the legal fraternity with the presence of conflicting judgments. To put quietus to this issue, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan has referred this matter to a five-judge...

Arbitral Award Can't Have Specific Format; Reasoning Must Be 'Proper', 'Intelligible' And 'Adequate' : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice K. .R. Shriram (Chief Justice) and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy have observed that an arbitral award does not have to follow any specific format; just as every judge writes their judgment in a particular style, arbitrators also write in different styles. The court also held that any ground which was not raised in a petition under...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: January 2025

Supreme Court High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse : Supreme Court Case Title: SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14 The Supreme Court today criticized the High Court's intervention under its Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitral...

No Bar On Court To Entertain More Than One Application U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that there is no prohibition for the Court to entertain more than one application under Section 29A of the Act seeking extension of time for the arbitrator to pronounce arbitral award provided sufficient cause is demonstrated. Brief Facts: The present application has been filed under section 29A of the Arbitration...

Court Having Jurisdiction Over Seat Of Arbitration Would Be Entitled To Entertain Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has held that the court having jurisdiction over the seat of Arbitration would be entitled to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: A dispute arose between the petitioner and the opposite party. An Arbitration clause was invoked. The award was also passed which was subsequently...

Award Passed By Improperly Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est In Law And Invalid: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that it is settled law that the Arbitrator is a creature of the contract and has to function within four corners of contract. If a particular mechanism is contemplated for his appointment, the same must be followed in its true letter, spirit and intent, failing which the Arbitrator is without jurisdiction and the appointment...