Arbitration Proceedings Before Improperly Constituted Arbitral Tribunal Are Non-Est: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held where the appointment procedure is invalid, any proceedings before an improperly constituted arbitral tribunal are non-est. Also, this would not prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the act.Additionally, the court held that whether a particular claim is precluded from arbitration on account of being...

Non-Signatories Bound By Arbitration Agreement If Their Actions Align With Those Of Signatories: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if a non-signatory party actively participates in the performance of a contract, and its actions align with those of the other members of the group, it gives the impression that the non-signatory is a “veritable” party to the contract which contains the arbitration agreement. Based on this impression, the other party may...

Quarterly Digest Of Arbitration Cases (July-September 2024)

Supreme Court Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445 Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July...

Court Under S.9 Of Arbitration Act Can Grant Interim Measure To Protect Property From Being 'Wasted' While Hearing Appeal U/S 37: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the court in the exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, is not obligated to consider the merits or otherwise of the facts as stated by the litigants. Suffice it to state that the High Court under Section 9 of the Act is empowered to exercise jurisdiction as an interim measure...

Pre-Arbitral Resolution Clauses Are Directory, Not Mandatory, Especially in Cases Requiring Urgent Adjudication: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that any pre-condition in an arbitration agreement obliging one of the contracting parties to either exhaust the pre-arbitral amicable resolution avenues or to take recourse to Conciliation are directory and not mandatory. Additionally, the court held that the disputes between the parties require urgent adjudication, it would...

Stamp Act Not Enacted To Arm Litigant With “Weapon Of Technicality”: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has observed that “the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments and it has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to counter and oppose the case of its adversary.” Brief Facts: The Petitioner had sought cancellation of a sale deed executed...

Eviction Order Under Public Premises Act Doesn't Bar Arbitration For Contractual Disputes : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act would not come in the way while invoking the arbitration clause upon filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator to decide contractual disputes.The bench comprising Justice PS...

Non-Compete Clause Is Invalid Post-Termination Of Contract As It Results In Restraint Of Trade: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Injunction

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil has held that though a non-compete clause can operate validly during the term of the agreement. But it would not be valid post-termination of the agreement as it would result in restraint of trade prohibited by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Additionally, the court noted that it is required...

Standard Is Higher For Post-Award Section 9 Relief, Order To Deposit Amount Not Passed In Routine Manner: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Hari Shankar held that the standard required to be met by a post-award Section 9 relief is higher than that required by pre-award Section 9 reliefs. In this case, interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was sought to secure the awarded amount. Brief Facts This matter is between National Highways Authority of...

When SLP Dismissal Order Is Non-Speaking, Review U/S 17 Of Arbitration Act Permissible: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if an order of dismissal of the SLP is a non-speaking order and no reasoning has been given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for the same, then review of the order challenged is permissible. Brief Facts In the present case two applications have been filed against orders passed under section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act....

Article 227 Is A Constitutional Provision Which Remains Untouched By Non-Obstante Clause Of S. 5 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet...

Interference Under Article 227 Is Permissible Only If Order Of Arbitrator Is Completely Perverse And Illegal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held that judicial interference under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in the arbitral matters should be limited and confined to exceptional cases. In the present case, a petition under article 227 was filed by the petitioner, Dr. Rajan Jaiswal in which the order passed by the Sole Arbitrator on September 24,2024 was challenged....