[Arbitration Act] Court Can't Modify Arbitral Award While Hearing Challenge Under Section 34: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan held that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 gives no power to the court to modify an award while hearing a challenge to an arbitral award. The bench held that the court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award, and any attempt to do so, even if...

Arbitral Award Can't Be Set Aside Merely Due To Incorrect Application Of Law Or Misinterpretation Of Evidence: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that an arbitral award should only be set aside if it is clearly vitiated by "patent illegality" evident on the face of the record. The bench held that an award cannot be annulled merely due to an incorrect application of the law or misinterpretation of evidence.Brief Facts:The matter pertained to the acquisition of land for...

Arbitration Act | Misplacement Of File By Lawyer Not Sufficient Ground For Condoning 966 Days Delay: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has refused to condone a delay of 966 days in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was due to misplacement of case files by the lawyer while shifting his office during Dussehra.“Misplacement of files due to office shifting, especially during a holiday period, is not an uncommon occurrence. However, the burden lies on...

Period Of Bonafide Negotiations May Be Excluded For Computing Period Of Limitation For Reference: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held the period during which the parties were bona fide negotiating towards an amicable settlement may be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for reference to Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The bench held that in such cases, the entire negotiation history between the parties must...

Where Arbitration Seat Is Fixed, Only Such Court Shall Have Exclusive Jurisdiction To Entertain Application Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that where the arbitration seat is fixed, only such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the cause of action arose at Noida, the agreement was executed at Noida, and the suit property is also situated at Noida. Therefore, the courts in Noida have jurisdiction over the appointment of an arbitrator.Brief...

Court Fully Empowered To Extend Mandate Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Under Section 29A(4): Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Brief Facts:The Petitioner and the Respondent into an Agreement titled 'Subcontract for Boiler Works of Unit 1,2,3 of BARH STPP-1 (3x660 MW) Balance Work...

Termination Of Arbitrator's Mandate Doesn't Equate To Termination Of Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that that the termination of an arbitrator's mandate does not equate to the termination of the arbitral proceedings. Instead, it allows for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator to ensure the continuation of the proceedings.Brief Facts:The matter pertained to disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent which arose...

Notice Under Section 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Pre-Requisite For Initiation Of Proceedings Under Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that except power conferred to the Central Registrar under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 for appointment of an Arbitrator, the other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall remain in operation. It held that the notice as required under Section 21 of the Arbitration...

S.16(2) Arbitration Act | Allahabad High Court Upholds Termination Of Arbitral Proceedings Against Decathlon For Premises In Lucknow

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Sole Arbitrator on grounds that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioners, private persons who claimed to be owners of part premises in question, and M/s Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd.Section 16 of the Arbitration...

Arbitration Act | Once Party Aware Of Contents Of Award, Can't Claim Extension Of Limitation By Invoking S.31(5): Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of signed copy of award being delivered to parties under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not to be construed narrowly. The Court held that once the party seeking extension of limitation by applying Section 31(5) of the Act is aware of the contents of the alleged unsigned award, the limitation cannot...

Issues On Merits, Should Be Raised Before Arbitrator, Not In Section 11 Proceedings ; Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that objection regarding the insufficiency of service is considered to be on merits and therefore should be raised before the Arbitrator. Brief Facts: The petitioner, Delhivery Limited, and the Respondent, Far Left Retail Private Limited, entered into a Service Agreement, which later resulted in a dispute. The...

Executing Court to Determine Stamping on Arbitral Award Meets Requirements Under Indian Stamp Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana held that the executing court cannot dismiss the objections regarding the adequacy of the arbitral award without determining whether the award meets the stamping requirements outlined in the Indian Stamp Act. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a dispute initiated by the Respondent-Bank against the Petitioner for...