Arbitration Monthly Digest: March 2025

Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Party : Supreme Court Case : Rahul Verma and others vs Rampat Lal Verma and others Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 269 The Supreme Court has reiterated that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm. The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan also referred to the Delhi High Court's judgment in Jyoti Gupta v. Kewalsons & Ors., reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7942 which held that an arbitration agreement does not stand discharged on the death of a partner and it can be enforced by the legal heirs of the deceased-partner. The Court was deciding an appeal against a judgment of the Gauhati High Court which referred the legal heirs of a deceased partner to arbitration. The appellants contended that the arbitration clause cannot be enforced against them as they are non-signatories of the agreement. International Commercial Arbitration | How To Determine Law Governing Arbitration Agreement? Supreme Court Discusses Tests Case Title: DISORTHO S.A.S. VERSUS MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 317 In a significant judgment relating to International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court today (March 18) ruled that in the absence of an express law governing the arbitration agreement, the applicable law should be determined based on the parties' intentions, with a strong presumption in favor of the law governing the main contract (lex contractus). The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case where the plea was made for an appointment of an arbitrator in an International Commercial Arbitration where the Petitioner was a foreign-Columbia-based entity, whereas the Respondent was an Indian-Gujarat based entity. In this case, because there was no express choice for the law governing the arbitration agreement, the Court then applied the implied choice test and inferred that the parties intended Indian law to govern the arbitration agreement, given that Clause 16.5 designates Indian law as governing the contract. Further, the court found that Indian law had the closest connection to the arbitration agreement satisfying the third test. High Courts Andhra Pradesh High Court Proceedings Before Registrar U/S 62 Of AP Cooperative Societies Act Not Arbitration, Provisions Of A&C Act Will Not Apply: Andhra Pradesh HC Case Title: Lakshmi Agencies v. Aryapuram Coop Bank Ltd. Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 620/2016 The division bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam has observed that when proceedings are held before the Registrar under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, such proceedings cannot be termed as arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, it was held that no provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 including Section 34 would be applicable to them. The appropriate remedy in such a case would be an appeal before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, under Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964. The fact that Section 76 of the APCS Act, 1964 itself provides a remedy of appeal, against the order under Section 62 of the APCS Act, 1964, would make it amply clear that the order passed by the Assistant Registrar cannot be treated to be an award in arbitration proceedings. The Court referred the decision of the Apex Court in Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1584 in this regard. Second Execution Petition Cannot Be Entertained When First Petition Seeking Execution Of Arbitral Award Was Dismissed On Merits: Andhra Pradesh HC Case Title: M/s. Real Fab India Pvt.Ltd. Versus M/s. Rashtriya Ispath Nigam Limited Case Title: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2936 of 2024 The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has held that a second execution petition for enforcing an award is not maintainable if the first was rejected on the ground that the award had not been set aside, solely because a signed copy was not filed with the application to set it aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Bombay High Court LLP Can Be Bound By Arbitration Clause Despite Not Being Signatory To LLP Agreement: Bombay High Court Case Title: Kartik Radia vs. M/s. BDO India LLP and Anr.COMM. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2022 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 85 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mere fact that an LLP is not a signatory to an LLP Agreement does not, by itself, preclude it from being a party to arbitration proceedings initiated between Partners under the arbitration clause of such an agreement. ...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: March 2025

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags