Right To File Section 14 Petition Absolute And Untrammeled By Any Other Considerations: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal, has held that the right of a party to file a Section 14 petition seeking to terminate the mandate of the tribunal is not curtailed because the party had previously filed a Section 16 application before the tribunal and lost. Facts: The petitioner, Yves...

Power Of Courts To Substitute Arbitrator Under Section 29A(6) Essentially To Further Intent Of Section 29A: Delhi High court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a petition filed under Section 29A(4) and (6) of the Arbitration Act, has held that Sub-section (6) pertaining to substitute the arbitrator is there to further the purpose of Section 29A.Section 29A(6) confers power on a court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators while extending the arbitral tribunal's...

Compliance With Pre-Arbitration Formalities Not Mandatory; Can Be Waived By Consensus: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that compliance of the pre-arbitration stages can be waived by consensus. The court observed that forcing the petitioner back to the rigmarole of pre-arbitration formalities would be an unnecessary and futile exercise.Brief Facts:The petitioner, Jayashree Electromech Private Limited, was awarded six letters...

Document Classified As 'Top Secret' Under Official Secrets Act Can't Be Directed To Be Produced By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a document classified “Top Secret” and “Protected” under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, cannot be directed to be produced by an Arbitral Tribunal.Justice Manoj Jain allowed the plea moved by Director General of Project Varsha, Union Ministry of Defence, against an order directing it to submit documents concerning the project in a sealed cover to...

S. 34 Arbitration Act |Mere Violation Of Law Won't Make Arbitral Award Invalid, Fundamental Policy Of Law Must Be Violated : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently explained the scope for judicial interference in arbitral awards under section 34 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of violation of public policy, highlighting that it is very limited, particularly after the 2015 amendment.A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra observed that mere violation of law...

Arbitration | Non-Signatory Party's Conduct And Relationship With Signatories May Indicate Intent To Be Bound : Supreme Court

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement is not necessarily non-binding on a non-signatory party. Such party, though not a signatory, may have intended to be bound through its conduct or relationship with the signatory parties. A referral court must determine the issue from a prima facie perspective; although, ultimately, it is the arbitral tribunal which...

Gujarat High Court Flags Arbitrator Bias, Confirms Setting Aside Arbitral Award On Grounds Of Patent Illegality

The Gujarat High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, has held that agreements for the sale of agricultural land to non-agriculturists are invalid under Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy Act unless necessary permissions from the Collector are obtained. The court observed that the agreement, executed through a Power of Attorney, was a...

Arbitral Tribunal Is The Fulcrum And The Facilitator For Taking Evidence Under Section 27 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarshini, while dismissing a Civil Revision Petition (CRP), has held that the Arbitral Tribunal is the fulcrum and the facilitator under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. The Bench further held that only Arbitral Tribunal can make a representation before a Court under Section 27(5). Section...

Since Seat Is Fixed, Only Court Having Territorial Jurisdiction Over Seat Has Jurisdiction Over Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that when the seat of the arbitration is contractually fixed, only those Courts having territorial jurisdiction over the seat would have the curial jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. Following the dictum in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd, the court held that the High Court of Delhi...

Delhi High Court Stays Arbitral Awards Due To Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator

The Delhi High Court bench presided by Justice C. Hari Shankar has stayed the execution of two arbitral awards, holding that the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent, without court intervention under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and in violation of Section 12(5) of the Act, rendered the arbitration proceedings invalid...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: August 2024

Supreme CourtArbitration | Impermissible For Arbitral Tribunal Or Courts To Grant Interest Upon Interest Under 1940 Act : Supreme Court Case Details: M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.812 OF 2014 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 558 The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an Arbitral Tribunal is not empowered to grant interest upon interest while passing an arbitral award as the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not specifically provide...

Both Parties Are Entitled To Get The Benefit Of The Latter Part Of Section 34(3) While Computing The Period Of Limitation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while hearing a Section 34 petition, has held that any party can benefit from the second part of Section 34(3) when calculating the limitation period. The statute's language does not specify who should request under Section 33. Therefore, the benefit of calculating the limitation period from the date of disposal of the Section...