Arbitration
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...
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...