Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: [13th January-19th January 2025]

High Courts Calcutta High Court Section 8 Application Must Be Filed Before Or Simultaneously With Written Statement: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Smt. Gitarani Maity -vs- 1A. Mrs. Krishna Chakraborty and others Case Number: FAT No. 308 of 2023 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Subhendu Samanta held that when no application for reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is made by either party, the civil court may very well entertain the suit and proceed with the adjudication of the same on merits in accordance with law. Also, the court held that the Trial Judge committed a patent error of law on both counts: first, the suit could not have been dismissed under Section 8. And secondly, the Section 8 application, having not been filed before or even simultaneously with the written statement of the defendant, could not have been entertained at all by the trial Judge. [Seat vs. Venue] Designated “Seat” Of Arbitration Has Exclusive Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court Reiterates Case Title: Versatile Construction vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Case Number: APOT/389/2024 with AP.COM/822/2024 IA No.: GA-COM/1/2024 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that once the “seat” of arbitration is designated in an agreement, it is to be treated as the exclusive jurisdiction for all arbitration proceedings. The Court referred to the 'Shashoua Principle', which propounds that when there is an express designation of a "venue" and no alternative seat is specified, the venue is considered the juridical seat of arbitration. The court noted that the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminium Company v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO) opined that the legislature had intentionally given jurisdiction to two courts i.e. the court which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located and courts where the arbitration takes place. This was necessary as the agreement may have provided for a seat of arbitration at a place which was neutral to both the parties. Power To Correct Computation Error U/S 33 Of Arbitration Act Can Be Exercised Suo Moto If No Application Is Filed Within 30 Days: Calcutta HC Case Title: Haldia Development Authority Vs M/s. Konarak Enterprise Case Number:AP-COM No.229 and 255 of 2024 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that power to correct computation error in the award under section 33 of the Arbitration Act can be exercised suo moto by the Arbitral Tribunal when no application is filed to this effect within 30 days. The court at the outset rejected the contention with respect to claims barred by limitation on the ground that the final bill was prepared on May 18, 2016 based on which the claim was made on November 11, 2016 which was within the limitation period. The court also noted that clause 3(a) of the contract allowed the forfeiture of security deposit only when the contract was rescinded but in the present case there was no material on record indicating that the contract was rescinded Delhi High Court Expert Tribunal's Award Did Not Suffer From Patent Illegality, Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Center For Research Planning And Action v. National Medicinal Plants Board Ministry Of Ayush Government Of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 42 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited, and the Court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to determine whether the award is good or bad. In the present case, the court held that the expert tribunals award did not suffer from patent illegality, and thus could not be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Petition, Party Must Use Remedy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD v. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 44 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that it cannot entertain a writ petition challenging an arbitral award, and the petitioner should challenge the award by taking recourse to appropriate remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The court observed it is impermissible for the petitioner to agitate these issues in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned award having been rendered by the sole arbitrator, and the objections as regards (lack of) jurisdiction having been rejected by the sole arbitrator, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to assail the same by taking recourse to the remedies under the...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: [13th January-19th January 2025]

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags