Arbitration Under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 Cannot Be Invoked Without Availing Pre-Arbitral Remedy Within Limitation: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur, has held that the Arbitration under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 cannot be invoked without first invoking the pre-arbitral in-house remedy provided under the agreement within the period of 30 days given under the Agreement. The bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Vinay Saraf held that the...

Person Interested In Outcome Of Dispute Can't Appoint Arbitrator: Kerala High Court Nullifies Appointment Made By Kerala Government For Its Wholly Owned Undertaking

The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice G. Girish held that the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Government of Kerala violated Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Perkins Eastman case. The court held that the Government of Kerala being the holder of 99.99% of the equity shares...

If Arbitration Award Not Challenged Under Section 34, Can't Be Challenged At Execution: Madras High Court

The High Court of Madras at Madurai has held that an Executing Court cannot go behind an arbitration award and decides issues on merit of the award. The bench of Justice G. Ilangovan held that an arbitration award can only be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act and party failing to challenge the award therein cannot raise contentious issues on merit of the award before...

Mandate Of The Arbitrator Cannot Be Terminated When The Delay Was Not Attributable To Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that mandate of the arbitrator cannot be terminated when the delay in proceedings was on account of pendency of appeal against the decision of the arbitral tribunal. The Court held that time consumed in the appeal and the consequent SLP and clarificatory applications cannot be attributed to the arbitral tribunal...

Arbitrator Appointment Cannot Be Called Unilateral When Respondent Consented To Appointment From Panel Of 5 Names: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the appointment of the arbitrator cannot be called unilateral when the tribunal was constituted pursuant to the consent by the respondent to the appointment from a panel of 5 names. The Bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh held that appointment of arbitrator from a panel of 5 names consisting of retired govt. officials would be valid in terms of...

Power Of General Manager Of Employer To Confirm Nomination Of Arbitrator By The Contractor Runs Contrary To Principles Of Impartiality And Independence: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that the power of General Manager of the employer to confirm nomination of arbitrator by the Contractor runs contrary to principles of impartiality and independence. It held that nomination by a party of its arbitrator cannot be subject to approval by the other party. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that for an appointment of arbitrator from...

While Court's Jurisdiction Is Limited At The Time Of Making A Reference, It Is Not Expected To Mechanically Refer Dispute To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while the court's jurisdiction is limited at the time of making a reference, it is not expected to mechanically refer the dispute to arbitration. The Court also held that once a party has chosen to file a civil suit to get the disputes resolved, it cannot be permitted to invoke arbitration when the suit...

Delhi High Court Imposes 5 Lakhs Rupees Cost On A Party For Failure To Disclose An Unfavourable Order Under SARFAESI Act While Seeking Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act

The High Court of Delhi has imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on a party that failed to disclose an unfavourable order under SARFAESI Act while seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that pendency of proceedings under SARFASI Act is not a bar on initiation of proceedings under A&C Act, however, a party must disclose a...

Debt Acknowledged In Letters, Delhi High Court Grants Benefit Of Section 18 To Hold Invocation Of Arbitration Within Limitation

The High Court of Delhi has held that assurance given by a party to repay the debts in letter issued to the other party would amount to an acknowledgement of the debt within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The bench of Justic Prathiba M. Singh held that such an acknowledgement would give rise to a fresh cause of action and the period of limitation would run afresh...

Industrial Tribunals Bound To Give Proper And Cogent Reasons For Their Orders: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has observed that Industrial Tribunals must give proper and cogent reasons for their orders. If the tribunals give reasons for an order, it will be an effective restraint on the abuse of power, as the order, if it discloses extraneous or irrelevant consideration, will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction. A Single judge bench of Justice...

An Award Issued By Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Can Be Contested For Invalidity Of Appointment, Even By The Appointing Party: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator can be challenged on ground of invalidity of such appointment and consequent lack of jurisdiction even by the party who made such an appointment. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that a defect of jurisdiction can be challenged at any stage since it goes to the power...

Appointment Of Arbitrators From A Narrow Panel Of 4 Arbitrators Is Violative Of Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that appointment of arbitrator from a narrow panel of 4 arbitrators is violative of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. It held that such practice of preparing narrow panels restricts free choice and give rise to suspicion that favourites are chosen. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that independence and impartiality of arbitrators is a hallmark...