Arbitration Cases Weekly Round Up [23rd December-29th December 2024]

High Courts Calcutta High Court Remedy Under A&C Act Is In Addition To Remedies Under Special Statutes, But Once Elected Other Remedies Are Barred For Same Dispute: Calcutta HC Case Title: Smt. Rita Banerjee & Anr. Versus S.E. Builders & Realtors Limited Case Number: IA No. GA 3 of 2022 in CS No. 57 of 2022 The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Krishna Rao has observed that the remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in addition to the remedies available under other special statutes and the availability of alternative remedies is not a bar to the entertaining of a petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But once elected, then the other remedy will not lie in respect of the same dispute. Delhi High Court Restraining Party From Participating In Any Tender Process U/S 9 of Arbitration Act Will Actually Thwart Competition: Delhi High Court Case Title: LAS GROUND FORCE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. GOLDAIR HANDLING SA Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1374 The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that if the respondent is denied participating in any tender process and ultimately, in the arbitration proceedings and then in the award, it is held that the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, then irreparable loss will be caused to the respondent. The court held that restraining the respondent from participating in the bid will actually thwart competition. Termination Of Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Results In Waste Of Time, Resources And Money, Court Allowed Petition U/S 29A (4) And (5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S RCC INFRAVENTURES LTD & ORS v. M/S DMI FINANCE PVT LTD & ORS Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1375 The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal have invested a lot of time, effort and energy in the arbitral proceedings. The essence of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a litigant-centric process to expedite the disposal of cases and reduce the cost of litigation. Also, the said delay of four and a half months in filing the present petition is not an inordinate delay to direct that the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator should not be extended, or a substitute arbitrator should be appointed. Award Is Time-Barred U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Due To Petitioner's Failure To Confirm Award Receipt On Affidavit: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S. INDURE PVT. LTD v. ANEJA CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1380 The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has affirmed that in absence of any positive affirmation on affidavit from the petitioner as to when the award was received, the Court cannot accept the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that as soon as the award was received it was filed by the petitioner. Friendly Consultation Necessary Before Issuing Section 21 Notice: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S N. J. GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus M/S CAPITALGRAM MARKETING AND TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1384 The Delhi High Court bench of J. C. Hari Shankar has held that in the present case there is no scope for negotiation between the parties, much less friendly negotiations. Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Award Passed By Ineligible Arbitrator Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Jammu And Kashmir HC Case Title: JAMKASH VEHICLEADS KASHMIR PVT LIMITED & ANR Vs. M/S WUERTH INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 348 The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has held that award passed by an ineligible arbitrator is liable to be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Karnataka High Court Reference Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act Should Be Filed Within 120 Days From Date Of Service Of Summons: Karnataka High Court Case Title: SRI.THANGAVELU. R v. SHRI. SANTHOSH. J Case Number: CRP No. 265 of 2022 The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar has held that a reference application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should have been filed within a period of 120 days from the date of service of summons to the defendant, which was long passed before 20.03.2019. Thus, where the reference application under Section 8 of the Act was made long after the expiry of the outer limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons, such a reference could not be construed to have been made at the earliest. Patna High Court S.12(5) Of A&C Act Provides For Agreement In Writing, Novation Can't Be Allowed Only Because Of Appointment Of Arbitrator At First Instance: Patna HC Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited Case Number: REQ. CASE No.53 of 2020 The Patna High Court Bench of ...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round Up [23rd December-29th December 2024]

Mohd Talha Hasan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round Up [23rd December-29th December 2024]

Mohd Talha Hasan

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers