Section 11 Petition Requires Only Existence of Arbitration Clause, 'No More, No Less': Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has held that the court in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not required to look beyond except existence of the arbitration clause at this stage; 'no more no less'. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act pertains to the appointment of arbitrators. It outlines the procedure for...

Objections Regarding Time-Barred Claims Under Section 11 Petition Should Be Left For Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held for the purposes of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, where the appointment of an arbitrator is sought, the question of whether the claims are time-barred should ideally be left for determination by the arbitral tribunal. Brief Facts: Capri Global Capital Limited (Petitioner) approached the...

Even If Case Doesn't Fall Under Section 36(3) Second Proviso, Court Can Consider Whether To Grant Unconditional Stay: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has held that even in a case which does not fall under the second proviso of the Section 36(3), by relying on the first proviso, the Court can consider whether to grant unconditional stay of the award or not. Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the enforcement of arbitral awards. It outlines...

Panel Of Arbitrator Proposed By Railways Would Have Certain Relationship With Railways, Violates 7th Schedule: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana has held that the panel of arbitrators of Railways would have a certain amount of relationship with the Railways and therefore, they would be covered by the 7th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, lists the categories of persons who are...

Parties Can't Be Forced To Arbitration If Arbitration Clause Unambiguously Requires Discretion Of Parties: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that parties could not be compelled to opt for arbitration when the agreement clearly left it to the discretion of the parties. A discretionary arbitration clause would require the mutual consent of all parties for the dispute to be referred to arbitration. Brief Facts: Late Yeshwant Boolani (“Deceased”) was...

Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pertains to the extension of the time period for arbitral tribunals to make their awards....

Court Must Assign Reasons When Releasing Amount Under Section 19 of MSME Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti has held that the court while dealing with a prayer under Section 19 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 to release the amount has to assign reasons for releasing such percentage of the amount. Section 19 of the MSME Act provides that the court may permit the release of...

Court Under Section 11(6) Must Determine Existence And Validity Of Arbitration Agreement: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of ChiefJustice Alok Aradhe has dismissed an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator noting that the party failed to establish prima facie evidence of the existence of valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that the court while exercising the jurisdiction under...

Arbitral Tribunal With Serving/Retired Railway Officers Violates Section 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that Railways cannot constitute an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of serving/retired Railway Officers, as it was not in consonance with Section 12(5) and 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 12(5) deals with the grounds of ineligibility of an individual to act as an arbitrator....

Arbitration Weekly Roundup: June 10 - June 16, 2024

Supreme Court High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425 The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power...

IIAC Releases Regulations For Conduct of Arbitration Involving Micro and Small Enterprises

The India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC) has notified the India International Arbitration Centre (Conduct of Micro and Small Enterprises Arbitration) Regulations 2024 ('The Regulations') on June 7, 2024 in the official gazette. These regulations recognise the necessity for expedited and more efficient dispute resolution for Micro and Small Enterprises, aligning with...

Proposal To Furnish Bank Guarantee, Not Enough For Stay Of Award, Should Establish Prima Facie Merits: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee has held that mere filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not render the award unenforceable. Further, the bench held merely requesting a stay on executing the decree upon furnishing a bank guarantee, without substantively...