[Arbitration Act] General Explanation Of Intra-departmental Analysis And Discussions Doesn't Constitute Credible Explanation For Delay In Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a general explanation of intra-departmental analysis and discussions doesn't constitute as valid and credible explanation for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The Appellant approached the Delhi High Court...

Delhi High Court Imposes Costs Of Rs. 50,000 For Unnecessarily Challenging And Questioning Of Arbitrator's Mandate

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on a party for unnecessarily challenging and questioning the mandate of the arbitrator. The bench held that the party's intent was to create a stale mate. It held that repeated interventions of the court in arbitral proceedings are to be avoided and parties cannot force the arbitrators to...

[Arbitration Act] Party Can't Challenge Procedural Order Passed By Arbitrator Under Section 9: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that a party is not permitted to challenge a procedural order passed by an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that: “…it is observed that by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 the Petitioner is merely attempting to avoid the appellate...

Jharkhand High Court Dismisses JUVNL's Appeal, Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment In Dispute With M/s Rites

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL) challenging the writ court's order to appoint a sole arbitrator in its dispute with M/s Rites.The Court emphasized that it is the High Court's duty to reject petitions or defenses based on purely technical grounds aimed at gaining an unfair advantage.The Division Bench, comprising Acting...

Once Arbitration Agreement Is Confirmed, Court Should Refrain From Delving Into Other Issues: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the role of the court is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that once the court confirms that the arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from delving into other issues, which are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.Brief Facts:The Petitioner was awarded a contract for...

[Arbitration Act] Arbitrator Obligated U/S 31(5) To Deliver Signed Copies Of Award To Parties, Irrespective Of No Specific Requests: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the arbitrator is obligated to deliver signed copies of arbitral award to each party to the arbitration. It has been held that irrespective of the fact that no specific request has been made by the parties for certified copy of the award, the arbitrator must deliver the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,...

Determination Of Delay On Part Of Contractor Is Not 'Excepted Matter', Only Quantum Of Damages Is Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the question of determination of whether indeed, there was a delay on the part of the Contractor is not an excepted matter and it is only the quantum of damages which is non-arbitrable. The bench held that: “….the question of determination of delay, is not an excepted matter and has to be necessarily arbitrated...

Where No Seat Is Specified In Arbitration Agreement, Jurisdiction Of Court Shall Be Determined In Accordance With Section 16 To 20 Of CPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that where no seat of arbitration is specified in the arbitration agreement, the jurisdiction of the court shall be determined in accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C. The bench held that: “….no confusion and law is explicit that for the purpose of Arbitration, even if no part of cause of action has...

[Arbitration Act] Awarding Interest Rate Is Discretion Of Arbitrator, Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right. The bench held that: “whether to grant or refuse the interest on the principle amount, is the absolute discretion of the learned Arbitrator.” Brief Facts: The Petitioner was...

Conclusions Drawn By Arbitrator In Disregard Of Evidence On Record Makes Award Liable To Be Set Aside As Being Perverse And Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to disputes that arose from a Memorandum...

Court Has Authority To Appoint Sole Arbitrator Even Though Arbitration Agreement Specified Three-Member Tribunal: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a contention that the court lacked the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator, even though the arbitration agreement specified a three-member tribunal. The bench held that because the parties have not been able to arrive at the name of an arbitrator, the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and...

[NHA Act] Section 3G(5) Petition Not Decided Within Prescribed Period Doesn't Preclude Landowner To Seek Enhanced Compensation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that landowner cannot be left high and dry for no fault of his. It held that the mere fact that his petition under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act was not decided by the Statutory Authority within the prescribed/extended period should not foreclose his right to seek enhancement in compensation. The...