Cheques Encashed Pursuant To 'Full And Final Settlement' Without Any Protest, Rajasthan High Court Refuses Arbitration

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, has held that an application seeking the appointment of an arbitrator would not be allowed if the parties had already entered into a full and final settlement, and the applicant had encashed the settlement amount without protest or objection. The Court held that in such cases, the dispute would be considered non-arbitrable. Chief Justice...

Power Under Section 9 Of A&C Are Wider Than Power Of Court Under Order 38 Rule 5 Of CPC: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that power of a Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act are wider than the powers of a Court under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. It held that unlike under CPC, the dissipation of assets is not a mandatory requirement for interim relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur a petitioner...

A Term-Sheet Is Not A Binding Agreement If It Required Execution Of A Definitive Agreement: Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka has held that a termsheet for buyout is only an offer and a contract if it was valid only for a limited period or till the execution of a definitive agreement. The Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and Anant Ramanath Hedge ruled that a termsheet would expire if the specified period for executing a definitive agreement passes without such an agreement being...

Can A Section 29A Application Be Filed In The Commercial Court Or Only In The High Court? Single Bench Of Bombay High Court Refers The Issue To Larger Bench

The High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) has referred the issue of maintainability of a Section 29A application seeking extension of the arbitration before the Commercial Court to a larger bench in view of conflicting views by two co-ordinate benches of the High Court. The Bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed that the since Section 29A of the A&C Act not just involves...

Ease Of Doing Business In India Is A Matter Of 'Public Policy', Fruits Of Arbitral Award Must Be Protected To Promote Business: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held that ease of doing business in india with indian entities is also a matter of 'Public Policy'. These observations were made by the High Court while hearing an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act at post award stage in arbitration with seat in United States (US). The Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the fruits of the award must...

An Arbitration Award With Contradictory Findings Is Liable To Be Set Aside Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration award, in which the tribunal rendered findings contrary to its own observations, falls within the rubric 'Public Policy' under Section 34 of the Act. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also held that in a situation wherein the arbitral tribunal has given conflicting awards on an identical issue involving the same parties and...

Non-Adjudication Upon An Issue Going To The Root Of The Matter Would Make The Arbitral Award Opposed To 'Public Policy': Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that non-adjudication, by the arbitral tribunal, upon an issue that goes to the root of the matter would make the arbitral award opposed to public policy. It held that such an award would be set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that once the tribunal duly notes the submissions of a party on an...

Arbitration Is Hailed As A Faster Alternative To Traditional Litigation, But Reality In India Falls Short Of Object: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that interference in an arbitral award on grounds of violation of public policy can be done if it is against the substantive provisions of the Act.The Court held that interference in arbitral award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on grounds of 'public policy' must be cautiously done as it can lead to excessive judicial review...

Arbitral Award Can't Be Challenged U/S 47 CPC In Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On State

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the State of Uttar Pradesh for raising objections under Section 47 of CPC in execution proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the grounds which were decided in application under Section 34 but were not raised in appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.While dismissing the appeal, Justice...

Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act And RDDB Act Are Complimentary, Can Continue Parallelly: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that proceedings under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act are complimentary to each other and both the proceedings can continue parallelly. The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that since both the proceedings are complimentary, there would be no application of principle of election of remedies and the...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 8th April To 14th April 2024

Allahabad High Court Whether Claims Prior To Work Order Are Covered By The Arbitration Clause Or Not Is To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd, Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023 The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to...

Jurisdiction Of MSEF Council Wrongly Invoked, Time Spent Therein Excluded From Limitation: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that when the jurisdiction of the MSEF Council is wrongly invoked due to uncertainty in law, the time spent before the Council would not be counted while calculating limitation. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, which exempts the bond fide time spent before the wrong forum, would be given in such...