Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [27th January - 2nd February 2025]

Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Appellate Courts Can't Reassess Awards, Must Limit Enquiry On Public Policy Breach : Supreme Court Case Title: SOMDATT BUILDERS –NCC – NEC(JV) VERSUS NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 115 The Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitral awards should only be interfered with in cases of perversity, violation of public policy, or patent illegality. It emphasized that appellate courts cannot reassess the merits of awards and must limit their inquiry to whether the award breaches Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act i.e., if the award is against the public policy of India. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case where the dispute arose concerning increased quantities of geogrid required for constructing a reinforced earth (RE) wall as part of a road construction project. NHAI claimed that increased quantities beyond those stated in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) warranted renegotiation of rates. High Courts Allahabad High Court [S.16 Arbitration Act] Jurisdiction Of Tribunal Cannot Be Challenged After Submission Of Defence: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - C No. - 41517 of 2024] Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42 The Allahabad High Court has held that as per Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after submission of defence and that the arbitral tribunal is empowered to adjudicate on its own jurisdiction. The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held “Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for challenge to the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitral Tribunal. In terms of sub-section (2) thereof, a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction should be raised not later than the submission of the defence. If the excess of jurisdiction crops up during the proceedings, the objection should be made at that very time. In any case, objection on the question of jurisdiction has to be made before the arbitral tribunal itself, and the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.” Bombay High Court Court Cannot Assume Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator Unless Request For Reference Of Dispute Is Received By Respondent: Bombay High Court Case Title: Sri Sathe Infracon Private Limited v. M/s Rudranee Infrastructure Ltd. & another (ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2024) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 36 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. M. Joshi has held that compliance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and that the court cannot assume jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 unless a request for a reference of dispute is received by the respondent. Here in this case, parties have agreed that before referring the dispute to arbitration, an amicable settlement must be attempted. In light of the agreement between parties, it is necessary to see whether there is compliance with this provision. Additionally, the court noted that it was specifically stated in the notice dated 28.03.2023 that the applicant had no intention of going into uncalled arbitration and had asked for an amicable settlement. It was also stated that if the date for amicable settlement is not communicated in 15 days, it shall be presumed that there is no possibility of settlement and in this situation, the Arbitrator came to be appointed. After this communication, there were settlement talks between the parties to resolve disputes between them amicably. While Commercial Speech Falls Within Free Speech, Contract Prohibit Adverse Remarks: Bombay HC Imposes 90-Day Injunction On Wonderchef's Distributor Case Title: Wonderchef Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Swaminarayanan Pty Ltd. (Commercial Arbitration Petition 791 of 2024) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 40 Observing that commercial speech is a part of 'free speech' guaranteed by the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court imposed a 90-day injunction against an Australia-based distributor of Wonderchef Home Appliances, owned by Celebrity Chef Sanjeev Kapoor, from making any comments or communications which could harm the reputation of the company, due to a contractual clause preventing them from doing so. Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while imposing the injunction, also ordered Wonderchef to invoke Arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. "It would be necessary for me to record that commercial speech is eminently part of free speech. It is not easy for a Court to prohibit a party from expressing itself about its grievances about a product acquired in the course of commerce, since the factors...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [27th January - 2nd February 2025]

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags