Right To Seek Reference To Arbitration U/S 8 Can Be Waived At Instance Of Defendant: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that a Defendant (in a civil suit) has the right to withdraw an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and submit to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The court held that when the Defendant (herein, the Respondent) withdrew the application seeking...

Arbitral Award Based On Law Prevailing At Time Of Proceedings Cannot Be Held To Be Illegal Due To Subsequent Apex Court Ruling: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, held that if parties were allowed to reopen concluded arbitrations based on new judicial rulings, it would lead to a flood of claims seeking to modify or overturn arbitral awards. Moreover, the retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos. Arbitrators make decisions based on...

Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Substitute Own Views Or Views Of Parties With View Taken By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi Court

The Commercial Court, District Saket Courts, New Delhi, comprising Justice Ajay Kumar Jain, held that the Court under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot substitute its own views or the views of the parties with the view taken by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, if the view taken by the Ld. Arbitrator is not in conflict with the settled legal...

Unsuccessful Litigant In Arbitral Proceedings Cannot Claim Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Bengaluru Court

The Bengaluru District Court Bench of Justice Sri Arjun S. Mallur held that a party whose claim has been rejected in the course of the arbitral proceedings cannot obviously have an arbitral award enforced in accordance with Sec.36. The object and purpose of an interim measure after passing of the arbitral award but before it is enforced is to secure the property, goods or amount for...

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Recalculation Of Arbitral Fees, Upholds Separate Fee Calculation For Claims & Counterclaims

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the arbitral tribunal had correctly applied the IVth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in recalculating the fees separately for the claims and counterclaims. Additionally, the court held that invoking Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was premature since no award had...

[Seat vs Venue] Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Discretion To Change Venue Of Arbitral Proceedings

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arun R. Pedneker has held that an arbitrator has the authority to change the venue to a conveniently located place even if the venue is specified in the agreement. The court held that the arbitrator may shift the venue if conducting proceedings at the agreed venue would be detrimental to the arbitration process. It observed that Section 20(3) does...

Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act To Challenge Award Passed U/S 18(4) Of MSMED Act Is Governed By Agreement Between Parties: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Jitendra S. Jain And M.S. Sonak, held that the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) to challenge the award passed under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act would be governed by the agreement between the parties which has conferred exclusive jurisdiction...

Scope Of Examination By Referral Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Is Limited, Substantive Issues To Be Dealt With By Tribunal: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that the scope of examination under section 11 (6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should be confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section 7 of the Act. Similarly, the validity of an arbitration agreement, in view of Section 7 of the Act, should be restricted to the requirement...

Arbitral Award Passed By Sole Arbitrator Appointed Unilaterally Is Without Jurisdiction And Non-Est: Delhi Court

The Commercial Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, comprising Justice Sanjay Sharma-II, held that an arbitration award passed by a sole arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the respondent is without jurisdiction and non-est. In this case a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed challenging an award passed by a sole arbitrator. Brief...

Baseless Allegations Against Arbitrators Must Be Dealt With Strictly, Arbitral Tribunals Can Hold Party In Contempt: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma has held that Arbitral Tribunals have the same power as a Civil Court in dealing with contempt against itself as per sections 17(2) and 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that baseless allegations against Arbitrators must be dealt with strictly. It observed that...

Delhi High Court Allows Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate Despite Post-Expiry Filing U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a petition filed under Section 29A of the Act is maintainable even if it is filed after the expiry of the arbitrator's mandate. Further, the court observed that this question is still pending before the Supreme Court due to a conflict of decisions of different High Courts, the view taken by Delhi High Court has...

Petition Under Article 227 Not Maintainable Against Orders Of Tribunal When Remedies U/S 34 & 37 Of Arbitration Act Are Available: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench of Justice Subahsh Vidyarthi observed that petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the petitioners to provide a copy of the contract between the parties and the final bill to the claimant, cannot be entertained. In the present case, a petition under Article 227 of...