Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [17th February-23rd February 2025]

High Courts Andra Pradesh High Court: Limitation For Appointment Of Arbitrator Commences From Date Of Failure To Comply With Requirements In Notice Invoking Arbitration: AP High Court Case Title: Alliance Enterprises v. Andhra Pradesh State Fiber Net Limited (APSFL) Case Number: Arbitration Application No. 48 of 2023 The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has held that the limitation period for filing an application seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, commences only after a notice invoking arbitration has been issued by one of the parties and there has been either a failure or refusal on the part of the opposite party to make an appointment as per the procedure agreed upon between the parties. The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd. wherein the court had observed that the “limitation period for making an application seeking appointment of arbitrator must not be conflated with the limitation period for raising the substantive claims which are sought to be referred to an arbitral tribunal.” Applying the law laid down in these precedents to the facts of the present case, the Court observed that the notice invoking arbitration clause was issued by the Applicant only on 17.10.2022. Assuming that three years were to be calculated from the said date itself, the present application which was filed on 31.08.2023 was well within the period of limitation of three years as prescribed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Named Arbitrator Cannot Be Replaced Unless There Is Evidence Of Partiality Or Bias Against Them: Andhra Pradesh HC Case Title: M/s. Kranthi Grand DKNV Hospitalities and another Vs. M/s. Manasa Estates and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others Case Number:ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 62 of 2023 The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur has held that the request for seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator other than the named arbitrator cannot be entertained if there is no evidence to show that the named arbitrator would act in a partial or biased manner. The court observed that the explanation given by the applicant as to why the arbitrator other than the nominated arbitrator is required to be appointed is very casual. No reasons have been furnished whether the named arbitrator falls any of the ineligibilities prescribed under section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others vs. Raja Transport Private Limited (2009) held that the appointment of the named arbitrator in the agreement is a rule and appointment of the arbitrator other than the named arbitrator should be treated as an exception. Calcutta High Court: Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing KMDA To Refund Amount Deposited By South City Projects Under MoU Case Title: KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) & ANR. Case Number: APO/205/2023 WITH AP/351/2020 IA No. GA/1/2023 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad has held that findings of the Arbitrator based material cannot be interfered with within the limited scope of proceedings under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The court noted that as per Article XX the remedy of requiring the defaulting shareholder to sell its shares to the non-defaulting shareholder is not absolute and is without prejudice to other rights. Article XX does not contain a clause ousting remedies legally available otherwise to the parties. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the arbitrator and decided against the appellant. It further added that the submission that there was no obligation on the KMDA to create any right or obligation in favour of the claimants in respect of the immovable property was rightly rejected. It further noted that a factual finding had been recorded based on his evidence that without encroachments being removed the development of even the reduced lands measuring 83.52 Kottahs of land was not possible.[Arbitration Act] Referral Courts Can't Indulge In Enquiry Into Whether Claims Are Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Kalpataru Projects International Limited vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL) Case Number: AP-COM/94/2025 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that in an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it would not be proper for the referral court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner were time-barred or not. “Courts, at the referral stage, can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are expressly time barred and dead or...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [17th February-23rd February 2025]

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags