Referral Court Has Limited Role U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act To Verify Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal affirmed that the scope of arbitration application, in view of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is confined and limited to the extent of examining the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties for resolution of dispute. Brief Facts Applicant has filed instant arbitration application under Section 11...

Enforcement Of Foreign Award Cannot Be Refused U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Unless It Is Against Public Policy: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari has held that enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused under section 48 of the Arbitration Act unless it is shown that the award is against the public policy of India. The court further observed that even during Covid-19 pandemic, the Banking Sector continued to provide essential services and in the Notification,...

Pre-Requirement Of Conciliation Before Invoking Arbitration Can't Prevent Filing Of Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that pre requirement of conciliation in an arbitration clause before invoking the arbitration cannot be a bar to file an application under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. Brief Facts The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. “The scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1996...

While Hearing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act, Court Must Confine Itself To Grounds U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua affirmed that supervisory role of Courts is very restricted in dealing with appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 of the Act is very narrow. Jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act is narrower.Therefore, Courts must be very conservative while dealing...

Award Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If Arbitrator Travels Beyond Arbitration Agreement: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that if arbitrator travels beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement while passing an award, such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.Brief FactsThis Arbitration Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the appellant-United...

Deposit Of Awarded Amount In Court Registry Sufficient To Extinguish Liability Arising Under Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi has held that the deposit of awarded amount in pursuance of an order of the court into the court registry would be equivalent to payment under section 31 of the Arbitration Act. This will extinguish the liability arising under the award for which execution petition would then not be maintainable. Brief...

Court U/S 45 Of Arbitration Act Must Refer Parties To Arbitration Unless Agreement Is Void Or Inoperative: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma affirmed that Section 45 of the Arbitration Act casts a statutory mandate on Courts to refer parties to an arbitration agreement to arbitration. The only limited exception carved in Section 45 is if the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the arbitration agreement is (a) null and void; or (b) in-operative; or (c) incapable...

Time Spent In Bona Fide Proceedings Before Court Without Jurisdiction To Be Excluded When Considering Objection On Limitation In S.11 Plea: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that the petitioner's claim cannot be treated as dead one simply because they spent time on bona fide court proceedings before a court without jurisdiction. Facts The respondent issued a work order in favour of the petitioner for the design,...

High Court As Court Of Record Can Recall Or Review Orders Passed U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Manish Pitale has held that the moment it becomes clear that the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is being exercised by the “High Court” and not by an authority in the form of the “Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him”, there can be no confusion about the fact that as a constitutional court and court...

Arbitration Agreement Remains Valid Even If Underlying Contract Is Terminated: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan affirmed that it is well settled that if the contract containing arbitration clause is rendered invalid or void, it does not affect the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement would continue to exist and the validity of which will be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under section 16...

Award Cannot Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Mere Illegality Unless Patent Illegality Is Established U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, affirmed that 'patent illegality' in the award calls for interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act but a mere illegality is not patent illegality. It ought to be apparent on the face of the award and not the one which is culled out by way of a long drawn analysis of pleadings and...