Though Legal Issue Can Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Proceedings, It Depends On Facts: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that though a legal issue going to the root of the matter can be raised for the very first time in appellate proceedings but the same is dependent on the facts of the case.The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held “There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that a legal issue going into the root of the matter can...

[Arbitration Act] Enforcement Of Foreign Awards Should Not Be Declined On Composition Of Tribunal If Not Raised Before Tribunal Or Seat Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that enforcement of foreign awards should not be declined on grounds relating to the composition of the tribunal, which could have been raised before the Tribunal and before the seat Court, but were not so raised. It held that the judgment debtor did not object, even at the stage of appointment, on this ground. The bench...

Seat Of Arbitration To Be Determined On Basis Of Connection With Arbitration Proceedings, Not With Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the seat of the arbitration proceedings is to be determined on the basis of connection with the arbitral proceedings, and not with the cause of action for the underlying disputes. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a dispute between the Respondent, registered as a medium enterprise under the MSME Act and...

Court Can Not Mechanically Send Dispute To Arbitral Tribunal, Must Consider Fundamental Issues u/s 11(6A): Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that the Court is not required to behave in a mechanical manner to send a party's dispute to the arbitral tribunal and must consider the fundamental issues, within the parameters outlined in Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that: “Since it is a well-settled law that...

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction under S.9 of A&C act Restricting Savera Eats' Usage of 'Burger Singh'

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited to prevent Savera Eats from using the “Burger Singh” registered trademark. The bench held that despite the termination of the franchise agreement, Savera Eats continued to operate the franchise outlet under the Petitioner's...

[Arbitration Act] Once Arbitral Tribunal In Place, Court's Consideration Of Section 9 Application Should Be Limited: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the question as to the consideration of the grounds, upon which the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is based can only arise when it is being considered by the Court on the merits, i.e., when the court is called upon to apply its mind to the...

Misconceived Section 9 & Section 11 Applications; Bar Should Take Necessary Steps, Spare Courts Of 'Unpleasant Duty': Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that it is for members of the Bar to introspect and take necessary steps and spare the Courts of the unpleasant duty. The decision came while reviewing applications presented before the Commercial Court and High Court, which were held to be beyond their jurisdiction. Specifically, the Commercial Court was held...

Attempts By Arbitrator To Reach Settlement Cant Be Termed As 'Conciliation Proceeding' Under Part III: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury held that attempts made by the arbitrator to encourage the parties to reach a settlement cannot be termed as 'conciliation proceeding' under Part-III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that conciliation is seen as an independent proceeding or an alternative...

[Arbitration Act] Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Recall Or Modify Its Award Under Section 33: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the arbitral tribunal cannot recall or modify its award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that none of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, of 1996, give the arbitral tribunal the power to recall and modify its award. It held that any act which the...

[Arbitration Act] Courts Can Only Appoint Arbitrator U/s. 11(6) If Parties Fail To Refer Dispute To Arbitrator Even After Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur held that to maintain an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Applicant is required to show that the Respondents failed to act as required under the arbitration clause and failed to refer the disputes to the Arbitrator even after a notice invoking the arbitration clause...

[Arbitration Act] Public Policy While Considering Enforcement Of Foreign Awards Has To Be Construed Narrowly, In Consonance With International Notions: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the public policy argument while considering enforcement of foreign awards has to be construed narrowly and in consonance with international notions of public policy. The bench held that all violations of statute or supporting legislation do not satisfy this ground, and violations must be of fundamental...

Inaugural Of The Arbitration Bar Of India

The inaugural ceremony of the Arbitration Bar of India (ABI) marked a significant milestone in the legal landscape of the country. Distinguished personalities from the legal fraternity attended the inaugural, certifying the pertinence of the event in the shaping and development of India's arbitration ecosystem. The occasion was in attendance of the External Affairs Minister Dr....