Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [25th November To 1st December, 2024]

Supreme Court S.29A Arbitration | 'Sufficient Cause' To Extend Time For Award Should Be Interpreted To Facilitate Effective Dispute Resolution : Supreme Court Case Title: M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS GENERAL MANAGER & ANR., SLP (C) NO. 2272 OF 2024 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 915 Extending the time for an arbitral tribunal to pass its award, the Supreme Court recently observed that extension can be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period and the phrase "sufficient cause" under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should take color from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process (ie facilitating effective dispute resolution). "The meaning of 'sufficient cause' for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process. The primary objective in rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted by the parties. Therefore, 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution", said a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta. High Courts Allahbad High Court Private Contracts Between Parties For Appointment Of Arbitrator Different From Statutory Appointment Of Arbitrators: Allahabad High Court Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India v. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited And Another Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 423 of 2024 Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that cases where appointment of arbitrators is through contracts which contemplate such appointment and statutory appointment of arbitrators are two separate classes to cases and the same are distinguishable on facts. National Highways Authority of India approached the High Court against order of the Additional District Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby it was held that the compensation granted to the respondent was not in accordance with law. Bonbay High Court Court Cannot Go Into Merits While Enforcing Foreign Award U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Neilan International Co Ltd vs Powerica Ltd Case Reference:COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 416 OF 2019 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S Doctor has held that jurisdiction of enforcement court under section 48 of the Arbitration is very limited and while enforcing the award the court cannot go into the merits of the case. S.9 Application Not Appropriate For Relief Against Non-Signatory When There Is No Dispute Between Parties To Be Referred To Arbitration: Bombay HC Case Title: Gulshan Townplanners LLP v. Gulshan Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Anr. Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 34078 of 2023 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that Section 9 of the A&C Act is not the correct mechanism to obtain relief against an entity when the privity of contract is absent between Delhi High Court Well Reasoned Award Cannot Be Interfered With Under Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Aktivortho Private Limited Versus Dilbagh Singh Sachdeva And Other Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1282 The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju affirmed that Courts should not customarily interfere with Arbitral Awards that are well reasoned, and contain a plausible view.Judges, by nature, may incline towards using a corrective lens, however, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, this corrective lens is inappropriate especially under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It was held that the error in interpreting a Contract is considered an error within jurisdiction of the tribunal. Therefore, judicial interference should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Procedural Orders Cannot Be Considered As Interim Award Or Challenged U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: COSLIGHT INFRA COMPANY PVT. LTD v. CONCEPT ENGINEERS & ORS. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1283 The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that a procedural order given by an Arbitral Tribunal, such as rejecting an application seeking impleadment of a party, does not qualify as an interim award. So, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Liberty To File Fresh Application Not Fresh Cause Of Action, Limitation U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Extended: Delhi High Court Case Title: NATIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY v. M S INTERMARC Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1292 The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee have held that mere liberty to file a fresh application before the competent Court does not amount to...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [25th November To 1st December, 2024]

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags