Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [ 2nd December To 8th December, 2024]

High Courts Allahabad High Court Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Post Expiry Of Tenancy Agreement: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Anoop Maheshwari v. Thomas T. Kurian [S.C.C. REVISION No. - 157 of 2024] While entertaining a revision petition related to a tenancy agreement, the Allahabad High Court has held that a clause for arbitration cannot be invoked for any disputes that arise after the contract has come to an end. “… it clearly transpires that existence of a contract is necessary for invocation of arbitration clause prescribed under the agreement as the clause would perish with the contract,” held Justice Ajit Kumar. Bombay High Court After Execution Of Sale Deed, Arbitration Clause Mentioned In Agreement For Sale Becomes Ineffective: Bombay High Court Case Title: Bks Galaxy Realtors LLP v. Sharp Properties Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 618 The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice R. I. Chagla has held that the Agreement for sale has come to an end by the execution of the Deed of Conveyance / Sale Deed. It is well settled that once a Conveyance is executed, the object, purpose, effectiveness and validity of the Agreement for sale comes to an end. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the Agreement comes to an end as the Agreement stands fully discharged and does not have any legal effect upon the execution of the Conveyance. SARFAESI And Arbitration Proceedings Can Proceed Parallely As Nature Of Both Proceedings Is Distinct: Bombay High Court Case Title: Aditya Birla Finance Limited Versus Paul Packaging Private Limited (COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO. 25050 OF 2023) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 619 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Advait M Sethna has affirmed that SARFAESI proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings, while arbitration is in the context of an adjudicatory proceedings. The SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration proceedings thus can proceed parallely. The court further observed that the role of referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act is very limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement. "Maintainability" And "Jurisdiction" Cannot Be Conflated While Deciding Application U/S 20 Of Arbitration Act, 1940: Bombay HC Case Title: Deepak Manaklal Katariay V/s. Ahsok Motilal Katariya and Ors. Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.2315 OF 2015 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Amit Borkar has held that maintainability and jurisdiction cannot be used interchangeably as they connote different things. Lack of jurisdiction results in the nullity of proceedings, as the court inherently lacks authority to adjudicate. Non-compliance with maintainability bars leads to dismissal without deciding the merits of the case but does not affect the court's inherent power. Chhatisgarh High CourtTwo Arbitration Petitions For Same Relief Cannot Be Filed: Chhattisgarh High Court Case Title: Himalaya Complex Vyapari Kalyan Sangh Supela Bhilai Society Through Its Joint Secretary versus Himalaya Commercial Complex Private Limited Through Its Chariman Case Number: ARBR No. 11 of 2024 The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Chief Justice Mr. Ramesh Sinha has held that two arbitration petitions for the same relief cannot be filed. Delhi High Court Court Which Appointed Arbitrator Has Jurisdiction To Substitute Arbitrator Or Extend Time U/S 29 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: OVINGTON FINANCE PVT. LTD. versus BINDIYA NAGAR Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 695/2024 The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the term "Court" under Section 29A must mean only to be the Court which has appointed the arbitrator and therefore the Court to extend the time or substitute the arbitrator would only be the Court which has appointed the arbitrator and no other Court. Additionally, the court held that Section 9 of the act deals with interim measures passed by a Court and therefore the term "Court" would have to take the meaning of the Court under Section 2(1)(e). Delhi HC Allows Invocation Of Arbitration Clause After 10 Yrs, Says That Scope Of S.11(6) Plea Is Limited To Ascertaining Existence Of Agreement Case Title: SHRI KR ANAND v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Case Number: ARB.P. 1776/2024 The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the scope of the present proceedings is confined to ascertaining the existence of the arbitration agreement. Also, the objections raised by the respondent regarding the limitation/jurisdiction would be required to be considered by a duly constituted arbitral tribunal. Delhi High Court Sets Aside Claim Of Rs.15 Lakh Awarded By Arbitral Tribunal Due To Lack Of Evidence Case Title: MOHD AMIN DECEASED THROUGH LRS versus MOHD IQBAL DECEASED THROUGH LRS Case Number: FAO (OS)(COMM) 81/2024 The Delhi High Court...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [ 2nd December To 8th December, 2024]

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags