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...

MSME Council Award Can Be Challenged Only U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act, Not Under Articles 226 Or 227: Orissa High Court

The Odisha High Court bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has upheld that an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) could only be challenged in accordance with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as mandated by Section 19 of the MSMED Act. The court held that the Single...

Party Can Waive Arbitrator's Ineligibility U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act By Express Agreement In Writing: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil affirmed that once an ineligibility to act as Arbitrator is waived by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, waiving party is prohibited from claiming ineligibility of the Arbitrator for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the petitioner had waived...

Scope Of Examination U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Confined To Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that when a non-signatory person or entity is arrayed as a party at Section 8 or Section 11 stage of the Arbitration Act, the referral court should prima facie determine the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement, as the case may be, and complex issue like whether the non-signatory is bound by the arbitration...

Multi-Clause Contracts Should Be Interpreted So That A View On Any Particular Clause Doesn't Violate Another Part Of The Contract: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta affirmed that the explicit terms of a contract are always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties. The multi-clause contract inter se the parties has, thus, to be understood and interpreted in a manner that any view, on a particular clause of the contract, should not do violence to another part of...

Arbitral Award Without Rationale For Damages Is Ex Facie Contrary To Settled Law, Can Be Set Aside: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that any award of damages, on the touch stone of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, must be predicated on actual loss suffered. The court set aside the award for not disclosing the rationale for damages and, on this count, held that the award was ex facie contrary to settled law and in manifest disregard of...

Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Requires Proof Of Actual Loss: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has upheld the Arbitral Award wherein the Tribunal had ordered a refund of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) as the petitioner had failed to prove any actual loss. The court, in light of Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, observed that forfeiture of the EMD requires proof of actual loss. Brief Facts: The dispute arose in...

De-Jure Ineligibility To Act As Arbitrator U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act Can Be Waived Only By Express Agreement In Writing: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that de jure ineligibility to act as an arbitrator can only be waived, after dispute having arisen, by the parties by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The court further observed that this waiver is different from section 4 of the Act which can be waived even by...

Award Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If View Taken By Arbitrator Is A Plausible View: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that conduct of the parties has to be seen before granting equitable relief for specific performance of the contract. If the conduct of the parties does not demonstrate that the party claiming relief is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract then the relief under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted. The...

Inordinate, Unexplained Delay In Passing Award After Conclusion Of Arguments Can Be Ground To Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing an award from the date of the conclusion of the pleadings can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the award was passed after more than 2 years from the conclusion of the arguments. Brief Facts The present petition under Section...

Scope Of Review U/S 37 Is Limited To Ascertaining Compliance With S. 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee affirmed that the Court under section 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision Brief Facts The present appeal under Section 37 (1)...