Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13th May - 19th May

Delhi High CourtDelhi High Court Sets Aside Orders Upholding Arbitral Award In Favour of Kalanithi Maran In SpiceJet Dispute, Quashes ₹270 Crore Payment Directive Case Title: Ajay Singh and Anr vs Kal Airways Private Limited & Anr. Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 179/2023 The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside...

Time Spent From Award Correction And Delivery Of Signed Copy Of Order Should Be Excluded From The Period Of Limitation: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that the starting point of limitation for setting aside an award in a case where a request under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is made is the date of disposal of such request. The bench held that the time spent from the date of disposal of such request till the signed copy of the order is delivered to the...

Filing Information In Sealed Covers For Enforcement Of Arbitral Award Is Contrary To Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the procedure of filing information in sealed covers for enforcement of arbitral award is contrary to the basic process of justice. It held that the concept of sealed covers also makes serious inroads into the principle of natural justice and fairness. The bench held that: “If the respondent was in the...

Arbitrator's Power Under Section 32(2)(c) Can Be Exercised Only If Continuation Of Proceedings Has Become Unnecessary Or Impossible: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.The bench held that the mere existence of a reason for terminating the proceedings is not sufficient. The reason must...

Existence Of Arbitration Clause Doesn't Automatically Bar Criminal Proceedings: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that held that the existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically bar criminal proceedings. It held that quashing of cognizance or proceedings, as well as the initiation of arbitral proceedings related to commercial transactions, are not determinative factors. The bench held that merely because there...

S.42 Arbitration Act | Party Filing S.9 Application In One Court Can't Dispute Jurisdiction Later While Dealing With S.34 Application: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that once party has filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before one Court, he cannot raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of that Court in dealing with any application arising out of the same arbitration agreement in view of Section 42 of the Act.Section 42 of the Act provides that...

Supreme Court Quarterly Digest 2024- ARBITRATION (Jan - Mar)

SUPREME COURT QUARTERLY DIGEST 2024Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996An award could be said to be against the public policy of India in, inter alia, the following circumstances: 1. When an award is, on its face, in patent violation of a statutory provision 2. When the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal has failed to adopt a judicial approach in deciding the dispute. 3. When an award is in...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Orders Upholding Arbitral Award In Favour of Kalanithi Maran In SpiceJet Dispute, Quashes ₹270 Crore Payment Directive

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside a Single-judge decision that upheld an arbitral tribunal's decision requiring the cash-strapped SpiceJet and its chairman, Ajay Singh, to refund ₹ 270 crore plus interest to media baron Kalanithi Maran and his company, KAL Airways. The arbitral award directed SpiceJet to refund...

Appointing High Court Has Power To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate U/s 29A: Allahabad High Court Reiterates Settled Position Till Larger Bench Decides Issue

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that if the High Court appoints the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, it has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 29A application for extending the mandate of the arbitrator. While acknowledging that the issue of the appropriate court for Section 29A applications was pending before a larger...

S.5 Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Application U/S 34 Arbitration Act, Timeline Provided To Be Adhered Strictly: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the timeline provided in Section 34(3) for challenging an arbitral award must be strictly adhered to.Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a period of 3 months for challenging an arbitral...

Special Appeal/ Letters Patent Appeal Against Order U/S.11 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that by virtue of Section 11(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, special appeal and letters patent appeal against orders passed under Section 11(4), (5) and (6) of the Act is not maintainable. The Court held that since the Amending Act of 2019 which did away with Section 11(7) had not been notified by way of Official Gazette, the bar placed...

Delay In Filling Appeal Under Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned Without Good Reason: Allahabad High Court

While deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Allahabad High Court has held that a delay in filling the appeal could not be condoned without finding compelling reasons for the same.Appellant approached the High Court under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 after a delay of 393 days. The Court relied on M/s N.V. International v. State of Asam and...