Court Having Exclusive Jurisdiction Would Have Juridical Seat Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that where exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on a court with respect to matters relating to arbitration, the same shall be construed to be a clear 'contrary indicia' and that the court, upon which exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred, would be the juridical seat of arbitration. Brief Facts: The...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [25th November To 1st December, 2024]

Supreme Court S.29A Arbitration | 'Sufficient Cause' To Extend Time For Award Should Be Interpreted To Facilitate Effective Dispute Resolution : Supreme Court Case Title: M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS GENERAL MANAGER & ANR., SLP (C) NO. 2272 OF 2024 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 915 Extending the time for an arbitral tribunal to pass its award, the Supreme...

After Execution Of Sale Deed, Arbitration Clause Mentioned In Agreement For Sale Becomes Ineffective: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla has held that the Agreement for sale has come to an end by the execution of the Deed of Conveyance / Sale Deed. It is well settled that once a Conveyance is executed, the object, purpose, effectiveness and validity of the Agreement for sale comes to an end. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the Agreement comes to an end as the...

Award Suffers From Patent Illegality When Adjudication Is Done Without Giving Any Reasons: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya, while a Section 34 petition, has held that when an award has been found to be rendered without giving any reasoning regarding the adjudication of the disputes, the said award suffers from patent illegality apparent on the face of the award, and liable to be set aside. Facts: The petitioner was awarded a contract to...

S.9 Application Not Appropriate For Relief Against Non-Signatory When There Is No Dispute Between Parties To Be Referred To Arbitration: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that Section 9 of the A&C Act is not the correct mechanism to obtain relief against an entity when the privity of contract is absent between Factual Overview: The dispute arose regarding a Redevelopment Agreement (RDA) and a Supplementary Agreement (SA) dated 20 July 2022. The agreement was entered between...

Limited Scope Of Examination U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act, Award Vitiated By Patent Illegality: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded the claim for loss of profit for the period the Contract was prolonged without any evidence or material to support the claim. Therefore, the impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality. Brief Facts: The present dispute arose with respect to an agreement...

MSEFC Must Decide Question On Limitation Before Adjudicating Dispute On Merits: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam. Koshy, while hearing a petition filed under Article 227, has held that the issues of maintainability, particularly the question of limitation, are to be decided by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) before proceeding to adjudicate the dispute on merits. Facts: In a common order dated 15/06/2024, the MSEFC,...

Special Treatment Cannot Be Given To Govt For Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Ms. Justice Rekha Palli and Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee has affirmed that just because the appellant is government that doesn't mean that a special treatment will be given while condoning the delay in filing the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.Brief FactsThis appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act challenging the order passed...

Arbitrators Cannot Pass Binding And Enforceable Orders Unilaterally Determining Their Fees: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has affirmed that Arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their own fees. A unilateral determination of fees violates the principles of party autonomy and the doctrine of the prohibition of in rem suam decisions, ie., the arbitrators cannot be a judge of their own private...

Filing Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act Before Statement On Substance Of Dispute Doesn't Waive Right To Invoke Arbitration Clause: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has held that if an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, the party cannot be deemed to have waived its right to invoke the arbitration clause. The court observed that the filing of the written statement and...

Court Cannot Go Into Merits While Enforcing Foreign Award U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S Doctor has held that jurisdiction of enforcement court under section 48 of the Arbitration is very limited and while enforcing the award the court cannot go into the merits of the case. Brief Facts This petition has been filed seeking enforcement of an award under part II of the Arbitration Act. This award was passed by an...

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Arbitral Award, Only To Circumvent Statutory Requirement Of S.19 Of MSMED Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a writ petition challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSFEC), has held that invoking the writ jurisdiction to challenge an arbitral award would circumvent the statutory requirement of pre-deposit u/s 19 of the MSMED Act, and would amount to defeating the...