Once Parties Explore Settlement Of Dispute Through Arbitration, It Can't Be Said That Pre-Condition To Invoke Arbitration Was Not Fulfilled: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court single bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe held that the precondition for invoking the arbitration clause is considered fulfilled when parties explore the possibility of settling the dispute amicably through arbitration. Correspondence and exchanges between the parties can be perused to assess whether there was an agreement over an...

Notice Under S. 21 Must Be Unequivocal, Should Leave No Doubt In Mind Of Noticee, Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Section 11(6), A&C Act Application

The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal dismissed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and noted that the Petitioner failed to send a clear notice as per Section 21 of the Act. The bench held that a notice under Section 21 has to be unequivocal to leave no manner of doubt in the mind of the noticee that the claimant intends to...

Cognizance Taken By Magistrate For Cheating And Forgery , Calcutta High Court Refuse To Refer Parties To Arbitration

The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application filed under Section 8 of the A&C Act by observing that the allegations of fraud and forgery would be serious in nature when the cognizance of the same is take by the magistrate. The bench of Justice Krishna Rao relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasiva, (2016) 10 SCC 386 and Rashid Raza...

Arbitration Act | Condonation Must Be Treated As Exception Especially In Cases Involving Fixed Appeal Periods, Delhi High Court Dismisses S. 34 Application

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay and termed it unreasonable that it took the Appellant nearly two months to collate documents that should have been readily available, considering they would have been submitted with the initial application under Section 34 of the Arbitration...

No Provision Under Arbitration Act To Spilt Parties Or Refer Part Of Subject Matter To Arbitration, Delhi High Court Dismisses S. 8 Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is no provision for splitting of parties and referring part of the subject matter to arbitration. It held that where a suit encompasses matters outside the arbitration agreement and involves parties not party to the said agreement, Section 8 of the Arbitration...

Appointment Of Arbitrator When Claims Not Covered By GCC Would Cause Wastage Of Resources And Time: Gauhati High Court Dismisses S. 11 Application

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that while the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability lies with the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court may intervene in manifestly non-arbitrable claims to prevent resource wastage. “To appoint an Arbitrator, even though there is no doubt in the view of this Court that the present dispute is not...

Certified Copy Of Original Arbitration Agreement Attested By 'Notary Public' Is Sufficient Under S. 8(2) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that a certified copy of the original agreement 'attested by a Notary Public' is sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. Once filed, the courts must refer the parties to arbitration. Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act provides, “The application referred to in sub-section...

Mere Registration Of Criminal Case In Relation To An Agreement Would Not Make The Disputes Arising Out Of It Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

The Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of Delhi High Court has held that merely because a criminal case of forgery/fabrication has been registered in relation to an agreement, any civil/commercial dispute arising out of such agreement would not become non-arbitrable. The Court reiterated that pendency of criminal case is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of...

Party Invoked Arbitration Clause By Referring To Work Orders: Delhi High Court Appoints Justice Mukta Gupta As Arbitrator

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh appointed Justice Mukta Gupta (Retd.) as an arbitrator for a dispute where a Petitioner invoked arbitration by referring to the work orders signed by the parties. The High Court observed the identical nature of the arbitration clauses in the tender and the work orders and held that there was no ambiguity even if the tender...

Waiver Of Arbitrator's Ineligibility Must Be Made By Agreement In Writing, Section 12(5) Does Not Provide For Deemed Consent: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the ineligibility of the arbitrator could only be waived if both parties agree by an express agreement in writing as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Parties' consent cannot be implied otherwise. Brief Facts: The Petitioners entered into a User Car Dealer/DSA Agreement (“Agreement”) with HDFC...

MSMED Act | Imposition Of Three Times Bank Interest By MSME Facilitation Council Is Violation Of Principles Of Reasonableness And Fairness: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court single bench of Justice R. N. Manjula held that the imposition of three times of the bank rate of interest on the award amount by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Facilitation Council is violation of fundamental principles of reasonableness and fairness. It held that the Petitioner is indirectly deprived of his appeal remedy in view of such high rate...

No Requirement Of Fresh Section 21 Notice For Re-Commencing The Arbitration After The First Award Is Set Aside Under Section 34: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that there is no requirement of Section 21 notice for re-commencing the arbitration after the first award is set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in such a situation there would be no requirement of a fresh invocation notice as the opposite party would already be aware of the existence of the...