Arbitrator's Award For Compensation For Excess Work And Business Loss Without Sufficient Evidence Is Perverse, Contrary To Fundamental Policy: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the arbitrator's decision to award compensation to the claimant for excess work and business loss, without sufficient evidence to support these claims, is perverse and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to an arbitral award that granted monetary claims...

Article 23A Of Schedule I-A Of Stamp Act Applies To Agreements To Sell Under Section 53A Of Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C.Hari Shankar has held that Article 23A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act applicable in Delhi covers Agreement to Sell to which Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) applies. Section 53A of the TPA is designed to protect a transferee who has part performed a contract for the transfer of immovable property. To avail of this...

Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Can't Be Used To Seek Re-Litigation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a “second bite at the arbitral cherry”.The bench further held that under Section 34 the court cannot...

Arbitration| Judge Hearing Sec.34 Application Must Apply Mind To Grounds Of Challenge: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 26) stressed fon the need for High Courts to ensure that orders dealing with challenges to arbitral awards precisely reflect adequate application of judicial mind on the merits of the case. The Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a challenge to the order of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court which has set...

Petition Under Section 34 Not Maintainable Against Rejection Of Application Under Section 16 By Arbitrator: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee has held a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable against the order of rejection of the application under Section 16 challenging challenging the jurisdiction of an arbitrator on the plea of res judicata and bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.Order 2 Rule...

Telangana HC Explains Section 31(7)(A) And (B) Of The A&C Act,1996 In Terms Of Timeframes, Embargo & Discretion

The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M. G. Priyadarsini has held the arbitral tribunal has full authority to award interest from the date of the award until the date of payment, regardless of any contrary decision by the parties. If the award is silent on the rate of interest, the award holder is entitled to an interest rate 2% higher than...

Non-Signatories Can Be Included In Arbitration Beyond Group Company Ties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held the inclusion of a non-signatory in arbitral proceedings is not solely dependent on the non-signatory being part of the same group of companies as the signatory.The bench further clarified that a non-signatory can be included in arbitration if there is a contractual relationship that makes the non-signatory partially or...

Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Part Of Award Dealing With Non-Arbitrable Dispute

The Allahabad High Court has held that disputes regarding works undertaken by party independent of the contract which contains the arbitration agreement cannot be determined under such arbitration agreement.Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 provides that a party is bound to compensate the other party for the work done by the latter party when there was no intention to do the...

Misunderstanding Of Basic Contractual Framework Vitiates Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that an award with misreading/misunderstanding of the basic contractual framework vitiates it at its root and makes it vulnerable to challenge under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Section 34(2)(b)(ii) provides a basis for challenging an arbitral award on the grounds of public policy....

Applicability Of Section 17 To Foreign Seated Arbitrations

Currently under the framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), Section 17 (which deals with powers of the arbitration tribunal to grant interim measures) –by virtue of it being under Part I of the Act– is applicable only to arbitration that are seated in India. However, in arbitrations seated outside India, the party seeking interim reliefs against the opposite party having its assets in India does not have an efficacious remedy for directly enforcing the reliefs in...

Arbitration Weekly Round-up: 15th to 21st July, 2024

Supreme Court of India Arbitration | Referral Courts Must Not Conduct Intricate Enquiry On Whether Claims Are Time-Barred : Supreme Court Clarifies 'Arif Azim' Judgment Case Title: SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KRISH SPINNING Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489 The Supreme Court held that while deciding a Section 11(6) petition for an appointment of an arbitrator,...

Arbitrator's Reliance On Unverified Evidence Violates Fundamental Policy Of India: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that evidence which does not qualify as pleadings supported by due verification or affidavit cannot be equated with proof of a claim. It held that the arbitrator's reliance on such evidence was contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The bench further held that the arbitrator was not in a situation...