Dismissal Of First Execution Application On Default Ground Does Not Bar Fresh Petition: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held mere dismissal of the first execution application on the ground of default does not prevent the award-holder/decree-holder from filing a fresh execution petition. The High Court held that the provisions of Rules 105 and 106 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not preclude the...

Ex-Parte Interim Measures Appealable Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act, Courts Must Allow Appeal In Exceptional Cases: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde has held that ex-parte interim measures granted under Section 9 are appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. The High Court held that the nature of ex-parte interim measures is similar to final orders since they conclusively deny the relief sought....

Courts Can't Undertake Independent Assessment Of Award In Appeal U/s 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma reiterated that while entertaining an arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the role of a court is limited to ascertaining whether the exercise of power under Section 34 has exceeded the scope of the provision. In such cases, the High Court held that courts cannot undertake...

Disputed Contract, Can't Be Challenged U/s 34 Of Arbitration Act Unless finding are Unreasonable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that the interpretation of a disputed contract falls within the arbitral tribunal's domain and is not subject to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 unless the interpretation is unreasonable. Brief Facts: Noble Chartering Inc. (“Noble”), a...

'Rohan Builders' Not Binding Precedent, Court Empowered To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Even If Section 29-A Petition Filed After Termination: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court is empowered the court is empowered to extend an arbitrator's mandate even if a petition under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is filed after the termination of the mandate. Justice Bhattacharyya clarified that the absence of negative expressions in Section 29-A,...

Act of God Does Not Justify Retention Of Performance Bank Guarantee Without Suffering Legal Injury: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal has held that a force majeure event specifically an Act of God beyond the control of the concerned party doesn't require retention of performance bank guarantee. The bench held that a party cannot retain monies recovered through encashment of Performance Bank Guarantee on account of liquidated damages...

Any attempt To Modify Award Under Section 34 is not permissible: J&K High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has set aside a judgment from a subordinate court modifying an arbitral award while underscoring that under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, courts lack the authority to modify arbitral awards and can only either uphold or set aside the awards.The question arose from an award in which the Arbitral Tribunal directed...

5 Important Supreme Court Judgments On Arbitration [January 2024 To June 2024]

Arbitrator's Power Under Section 32(2)(c) Can Be Exercised Only If Continuation Of Proceedings Has Become Unnecessary Or Impossible: Supreme Court Case Title: Dani Wooltex Corporation & Ors. vs SheilProperties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024 The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the power under...

LLP And Its Individual Partners Can't Raise Same Issue By Separate Appeals U/s 37 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Battacharyya held that an LLP and its partners cannot file separate appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by citing the principle of 'separate legal entity'. It was held that the principle of res judicata would apply to prevent the individual partners from raising the same issue under Section 37,...

Arbitrator Must Determine Validity Of Coercion Claims In Settlement Agreements, Termination Of Arbitration Improper: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that claims of coercion or economic duress in a settlement agreement require examination by an arbitrator to determine their validity. The bench held that the Arbitrator's summary dismissal of the claimant's plea and the termination of arbitration proceedings without a trial were improper. Further, Justice...

Courts Can't Constantly Interfere And Micro-Manage Arbitral Proceedings: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that the court cannot constantly interfere with and micromanage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals. The bench held that the scope of judicial interference under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act is limited in nature. The bench held that the court: (i) will not interfere with...

'Subsequent Shareholders' Do Not Qualify As 'Association Or Body of Individuals' Under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that “subsequent shareholders,” each holding a specific number of shares and having the right to exit the company under defined conditions while undertaking individual rights and obligations, do not qualify as an "association or body of individuals" under Section 2(1)(f)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation...