Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 28th October 2024 To 3rd November, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX 1. Atul Pratap Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 3 Others, 2024:AHC:167917-DB 2. State Of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others v. M/S Virat Construction, 2024:AHC:171241-DB 3. NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD., 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182 4. The State of H.P. & Anr. V. M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd, OMP(M) No. 74 of 2023 5. INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD, 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191 6. M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE, 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192 7. State Of Rajasthan v. M/s Atlanta Ltd., 2024:RJ-JP:41526-DB 8. HARI OM SHARMA v. SAUMAN KUMAR CHATTERJEE & ANR, 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1193 9. Sh. Pankaj Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., ARBTN No.7418/17 10. M/s Telecommunications Consultants India Limited v. Veekay Connectors Pvt. Ltd., OMP (Comm.) No.01/2022 High Court While Filing Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act, Applicant Is Not Required To Dispute Contents Of Plaint: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Atul Pratap Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 3 Others Case Number: 2024:AHC:167917-DB The Allahabad High Court Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has held that there is no requirement for the applicant to dispute the contents of the plaint, while filling in an application under Section 8. The very fact that an application has been filed necessarily means that the applicant wants to refer the dispute to arbitration. Additionally, the court held that the scope of judicial review and jurisdiction of the Court under Section 8 and 11 of the Act is identical, but extremely limited and restricted with little interference from court. Arbitration Act | New Evidence Cannot Be Adduced At S.37 Stage, Bar Of Limitation U/S 34(3) Is Attracted: Allahabad HC Case Title: State Of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others v. M/S Virat Construction Case Reference: 2024:AHC:171241-DB The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, held that the amendment obtained or raising fresh grounds virtually amounts to file a fresh appeal and would be barred by limitation as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Hence, it is not open for the appellant to raise any new ground or adduce any fresh evidence in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Not Every Legal Mistake Made by Arbitral Tribunal Is Patent Illegality, Scope Limited To Substantive Laws: Delhi High Court Case Title: NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182 The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that patent illegality applies only to violations of substantive law of India, the Arbitration Act, or the rules applicable to the substance of the dispute. It does not apply to every legal mistake made by the arbitral tribunal. Additionally, the court held that the scope of a challenge under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated therein. Applicability Of Section 5 Of Limitation Act To Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Excluded: Himachal Pradesh HC Case Title: The State of H.P. & Anr. V. M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd Case Reference: OMP(M) No. 74 of 2023 The Himachal Pradesh High Court Bench of Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that the prescribed period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act is three months and further that given the language used in proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of the Act, applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act to the petition under Section 34 of the Act has been excluded. Enforcement Court U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act Can Refuse To Enforce Foreign Award But Cannot Set It Aside: Delhi High Court Case Title: INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191 The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh affirmed that the power to set aside a foreign award lies only with the courts at the seat of the arbitration, which exercise primary/supervisory jurisdiction over the matter. Even if grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act can be made out, the Court being the enforcement court and having only secondary jurisdiction over the foreign award cannot set aside the award but may only “refuse” its enforcement. Agreement Between Parties Must Be Given Primacy When Deciding Petition U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S INNOVATIVE FACILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. M/S AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1192 The Delhi High Court Bench of Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the role of the court under section 9 of the Arbitration Act is to preserve the subject matter of the Arbitration till the arbitral tribunal ...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 28th October 2024 To 3rd November, 2024

Mohd Malik Chauhan