Discovery And Inspection Orders By Arbitral Tribunal Are Not Interim Awards If They Do Not Resolve Disputed Issues: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that an order by arbitral tribunal addressing applications related to the discovery and inspection of documents does not constitute an interim award if it does not resolve a matter at issue between the parties. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition filed under Section 34 of the...

Duty Of Every Arbitral Tribunal & Court To Examine What The Contract Provides : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that the courts and arbitral tribunals have the duty to examine the contract clauses in proceedings concerning arbitration.While upholding Calcutta High Court's decision to set aside the arbitrator's decision to award the amount for loss due to idle machinery and labour despite it being prohibited under the contract, the Court said : “In fact,...

Allegations Of Fraud And Time-Barred Claims Must Be Addressed By Arbitral Tribunal, Not Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that issues such as allegations of fraud and claims that the applicant's claims are time-barred must be addressed by the arbitral tribunal rather than the court. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which sought the reference of a dispute...

Section 34 Challenge Unwarranted If Arbitrator's Judgment Is Well-Reasoned And Based On Evidence: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if an Arbitrator's judgment is well-reasoned and backed by substantial evidence, there are no grounds to challenge it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a dispute between BLA Projects Private Limited (the claimant/respondent) and...

Excise Duty Disputes Non-Arbitrable Only When Involving Sovereign Functions Including Determination Of Tax Rate Or Liability: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a dispute regarding excise duty is only non-arbitrable when it involves a sovereign function, such as determining tax liability or the rate at which duty must be paid to revenue authorities. The bench clarified that this issue is separate from the dispute which concerns whether the claimant is obligated to pay...

Court's Role Under Section 11(5) Or 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Limited To Verifying Arbitration Agreement And Timely Filing: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held when a Court exercises jurisdiction under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it has to only ensure the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and to confirm that the petition under these sections has been filed within three years of the service of a Section...

Government Entities Must Also Be Viewed Equally In Delay Condonation Applications Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that a government entity should also be seen from an egalitarian perspective while considering application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that while government agencies are not granted undue favor as litigants, there...

Grounds For Challenging Arbitral Awards Narrower Under 1940 Act Compared To 1996 Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the grounds for challenging an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act of 1940 are more limited compared to those under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The High Court considered the grounds enumerated under Section 34 of the 1996 Act which allow for a challenge if a party was incapacitated,...

Pre-Arb Step(s) Cannot Be Treated As Mandatory If Could Not Be Fructified: Rajasthan High Court

The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal at the Rajasthan High Court opined that where pre-arbitration steps mentioned in the agreement could not be fructified, it could not be held that those were mandatory in nature and in the event of failure of these no arbitration could be initiated. The Court held that it was a well settled principle of law that an arbitration agreement being a commercial...

Section 29A Time Limit Does Not Apply To Arbitral Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that time limit under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable to arbitral proceedings “commenced” as per Section 21 prior to 2015 amendment. The bench held the “commencement” of proceedings is the relevant yardstick for determining applicability of the Section 29A after 2015 amendment...

Court Has Power To Grant Anti-Enforcement Injunction Against Proceedings In Foreign Court Which Threaten Arbitral Process Initiated In India: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that when proceedings in a foreign court, or a decree issued by a foreign court, threaten the arbitral process that may be initiated in India, the court has the authority under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to restrain the party from continuing with the foreign proceedings or enforcing the...

Commercial Division Of High Court Can Hear Applications And Appeals Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 Filed On Original Side: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even if an application or appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to a commercial dispute is filed on the Original Side of the High Court, the same can be heard and disposed by the Commercial Division of the High Court. The bench held that: “The language used in Section 10(2)...