Arbitration Cases Weekly Round Up [16th December-22nd December 2024]

Supreme Court Arbitration Can't Be 'Optional' When Agreement Provides Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court Case Title: TARUN DHAMEJA VERSUS SUNIL DHAMEJA & ANR. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 996 The Supreme Court held that there cannot be an 'optional' arbitration, where parties are required to mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause. Setting aside the MP High Court's decision, the Court said that there is nothing like 'optional arbitration' that could be invoked after both parties mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause. According to the Court, arbitration is not 'optional' in practice. Clarification On Award Can Be Issued Even After Arbitral Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio : Supreme Court Case Title: NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VERSUS M/S. S.A. BUILDERS LTD. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1010 The Supreme Court observed that although the Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio after passing an award, it would still retain the limited jurisdiction to clarify or correct errors in an award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision allowing the respondent to seek clarification from the Arbitral Tribunal about whether post-award interest under Section 31(7)(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be calculated on the principal amount plus pre-award interest. High Courts Chhatisgarh High Court Findings Of Arbitrator U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Scrutinised As If Court Is Sitting In Appeal: Chhattisgarh High Court Case Title: M/s S.K. Minerals versus South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Case Number:ARBA No. 35 of 2022 The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justices Smt. Rajani Dubey and Shri Bibhu Datta Guru has held that findings of the Arbitrator cannot be scrutinised under section 34 of the Arbitration Act as if the court is sitting in appeal. Delhi High Court If Remedy For Cause Of Action Falls Within Scope Of Arbitration Agreement, Counter Party Cannot Be Compelled To Defend It In A Suit: Delhi HC Case Title: M/S GRANDSLAM DEVELOPERS PVT LTD v. AKSHAY GANDHI PROPRIETOR OF PRAXIS DESIGN SOLUTIONS Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1351 The Delhi High Court Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the scope of examination in an application under Section 8 of the Act is limited to prima facie examining the validity and existence of the arbitration agreement. Once it is accepted that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the court is necessarily required to allow the application under Section 8 of the Act and refer the parties to arbitration. Sufficiency Of Reasons Over Number Of Days Is Considered While Determining Plea Of Condonation Of Delay U/S 37(1)(2) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC Case Title: M/S SATYADHARA COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD v. M/S INDIASIGN PVT LTD Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1353 The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any plausible reasons for the delay caused in filing the present appeal. Also, there was not any exceptional circumstance(s) which precluded the appellant from filing the present appeal during the prescribed statutory period. The same is of vital importance as it is not merely the number of days of delay, which would be material for considering the application seeking condonation of delay, but it is the sufficiency of reasons for the delay which would be relevant to determine whether the delay should be condoned. Memorandum Of Family Settlement Did Not Require Registration: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Case Title: SUBHASH CHANDER BAJAJ (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS v. INDERJIT BAJAJ (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1369 The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee has held that the Single Judge has, without interfering with the factual findings arrived at by the learned Arbitrator, correctly applied the settled legal position to the MFS, by holding that the same being a record of prior oral partition of the properties between all the sons of late Mr. Amarnath Bajaj, was only a Memorandum regarding the existing settlement between the parties. Moreover, the court held that the Memorandum of Family Settlement (“MFS”) did not require registration.

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round Up [16th December-22nd December 2024]

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags