No Prior Request Under Section 21 Needed For Section 11 Arbitration Applications: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21. The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of...

Correspondence Stating Non-Arbitrability Of Dispute Due To Negotiable Instruments Act Proceedings Implies Recognition Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that correspondence from a party stating that ongoing proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 barred initiation of arbitration implicitly acknowledged the existence of the arbitration clause. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Applicants Seeking Pandemic Relaxation For Limitation Under Section 34 Petition Cannot Simultaneously Claim IBC Moratorium Protection: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC. The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic...

No Denial Of Opportunity When Arbitrator Allowed Claimants To Submit Additional Affidavit Revealed In Respondent's Response-Affidavit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that there is no denial of opportunity when the arbitrator permitted the claimants to submit an additional affidavit by way of examination-in-chief which came to light for the first time in the response-affidavit filed by the Respondent. Brief Facts: DD Auto Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) was one of the co-claimants in an...

Legality Of Arbitrator's Appointment Can't Be Challenged In Petitions For Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that objections related to the legality of an arbitrator's appointment cannot be raised in a petition seeking an extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: Apex Buildsys Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a petition under Section 29A(4) of...

Arbitration Clause Invalid If Contractor Cannot Select Arbitrator From Railway's Panel: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an arbitration clause is invalid if it does not allow the contractor to select an arbitrator from a panel provided by the Railway. The High Court noted that there was a significant distinction between the clause and the arbitration clause previously considered by the Supreme Court in Central Organization for...

Section 34 Applications Challenging Arbitral Awards Subject To ₹120 Court Fee, Higher Fees Under Entry No. 1(10) Not Applicable: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the principal application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award, falls under Entry No. 2(c) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. This entry is the residuary provision that prescribes a court fee of Rs. 120 for original applications before the...

State Not Part To Agreement Can't File Section 16 Application: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani has held that an arbitration agreement entered into between the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, and a private company does not involve or implicate the State Government in any legal capacity. The bench held that such an agreement is exclusively between...

Sec 151 CPC Application Not Maintainable When Sect 29A(4) Of Arbitration Act Applies, Incorrect Quote Of Section Not Grounds For Dismissal: HP High Court

The Himachal High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that an application under Section 151 of the CPC is not maintainable when a specific provision exists under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extending the time of arbitration proceedings. However, the bench also held that the application cannot be dismissed solely because it cited...

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Decision To Deny Pre-Reference, Pendente Lite Interest for Project Delay

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that it is reasonable for an arbitrator to deny pre-reference and pendente lite interest when the applicant is partially responsible for delays in completing the project. The bench held that interpreting a contract and determining claims based on that interpretation fall within the arbitral...

Arbitral Tribunal Is Master of Evidence, Delhi High Court Upholds Award Against Railways

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that when an arbitrator delivers an Arbitral Award, the assessment of the quality and quantity of evidence presented to her must be respected, and any reasonable conclusion drawn by the arbitrator based on the facts should be upheld. The bench held that that the Arbitral Tribunal is...

Court Acquires Jurisdiction Under Section 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Immediately On Default Of Pre-Arbitral Or Arbitral Procedure: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that court acquires jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 immediately on the default, of either party, in adhering to the pre-arbitral or arbitral procedure envisaged in the contract. Section 11(6) provides that if a party fails to appoint an arbitrator, or if the...