Arbitration | Referral Courts Must Not Conduct Intricate Enquiry On Whether Claims Are Time-Barred : Supreme Court Clarifies 'Arif Azim' Judgment

The Supreme Court held that while deciding a Section 11(6) petition for an appointment of an arbitrator, the referral courts must not conduct an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the applicant are time-barred and should leave that question for determination by the arbitrator. The Court said that the referral court should limit its enquiry...

Invoking Section 8(1) Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996, Formal Application Is Required, Averment In Written Statement Not Enough

The Telangana High Court has clarified the procedural requirements for invoking arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that a formal application for referring parties to arbitration must be filed before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, typically the written statement in a suit. The case arose from a...

Courts Must Refrain From Interim Orders Once Arbitral Tribunal Is Constituted Unless Urgency Demands: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is in place, ordinarily a court should refrain from dealing with the matter even for the purposes of passing interlocutory orders unless the order is demonstrably one which cannot await the application of mind by the Arbitral Tribunal. The bench held that: “. If party is able to convince...

Disputes Predominantly Civil But Involving Elements Of Criminality Not Automatically Excluded From Arbitration: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has held that a dispute predominantly civil but involving elements of criminality is not automatically excluded from arbitration. The bench noted that unless there is a specific allegation of the parties engaging in an agreement amounting to criminal conspiracy, there should be no blanket prohibition...

Arbitral Award In Violation Of Contractual Bar Is Patently Illegal: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an arbitral award in violation of a bar contained in the contract is beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The bench held that such an award categorically vitiated under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as by patent illegality as envisaged in Sub-section...

Disobedience Of Interim Measures Due To Insolvency Proceedings Is Not Contempt: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has held that disobedience of interim measures granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to insolvency proceedings does not warrant contempt charges. The bench held that if the disobedience results from circumstances beyond the contemnor's control, such as financial constraints or ongoing disputes...

Arbitral Tribunal Can Award Compensation For Breach If Contract Is Incapable Of Specific Performance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that the arbitral tribunal may exercise its power to award compensation for breach if a Contract has become incapable of specific performance. Further, the bench held that the interpretation of a contract is a matter for an arbitrator to determine. It held that even if such interpretation...

Aggrieved Third Party Beneficiaries Of Domain Names Cannot Challenge Arbitration Award U/s 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that only parties to an arbitration agreement can challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was further held that 3rd-party beneficiaries of domain names in India, who are impacted by the arbitral award, lack the standing to challenge the award. Brief Facts: Jindal...

Invocation of Arbitration Beyond Stipulated Period In Clause Does Not Frustrate Parties' Intent To Arbitrate: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the invocation of arbitration after the period defined in the arbitration clause doesn't frustrate the intention of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration. The bench held that the outer limit stipulated in the arbitration clause for invocation of arbitration if failed by the claimant, does...

Supreme Court's Interpretation Of 'Three Months' As 90 Days In Section 34(3) Of Arbitration Act As Obiter Dicta, Not Ratio Decidendi: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta has held that the Supreme Court's observations regarding the interpretation of "three months" in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as 90 days in various cases were not the ratio decidendi but obiter dicta. The bench held that the period of limitation must be computed based on calendar months,...

Composite Reference To Arbitration Necessary When Dispute Involves Same Subject Matter: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held allowed composite reference of two companies to arbitration noting that the two arbitration agreement refer to the self-same demised property. Moreover, it noted that both the agreements were entered into by the same proposed lessee with two co-owners of the self-same property. The bench held...

Arbitration Weekly Roundup: July 08 - July 14, 2024

Supreme Court Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445 Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July...