Arbitration Weekly Round Up [9th December To 15th December 2024]

Supreme Court S. 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court Case : Kirpal Singh Vs Government Of India Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 970 The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for the exclusion of the time spent in pursuing bona fide proceedings in a wrong forum from the computation of the period of limitation. A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Limitation Act liberally as there is only a limited window to challenge an arbitral award. Disputes Falling Exclusively Within Jurisdiction Of Statutory Authorities Aren't Arbitrable : Supreme Court Reiterates Case Title: Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 981 The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that disputes falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable. While holding so, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the dispute related to wages and termination of an employee were non-arbitrable and would be exclusively dealt with by the statutory authorities established under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (“PW Act”) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”). High Courts Bombay High Court High Court Under Article 226/227 Can Examine Validity Of Interlocutory Orders Passed By Arbitrator: Bombay High Court Case Title: Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology Versus M/s. Kay Vee Enterprises (WRIT PETITION NO. 9868 / 2024) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 635 The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Shailesh P. Brahme and S.G. Mehare has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not excluded from examining the validity of the interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitrator. Calcutta High Court Order Passed U/S 11 Cannot Be Recalled If Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists To Justify Reference Of Parties To Arbitration: Calcutta HC Case Title: BANKAT GARODIA VS ADITYO PODDAR Case Number: IA NO.GA-COM/2/2024 In AP-COM/17/2023 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an order passed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act on the basis of an arbitration clause cannot be recalled merely on the ground that reply given to a notice under section 21 was suppressed. Chhatisgarh High Court Court At Designated Seat Would Have Exclusive Jurisdiction To Entertain Applications Arising Out Of Arbitration: Chhattisgarh HC Case Title: M/s. Radhakishan Ventures Private Limited versus M/s Caratlane Trading Private Limited and Ors. Case Number: Arbitration Appeal No.30 of 2024 The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justices Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Radhakishan Agrawal has held that court having supervisory jurisdiction over seat designated in the Arbitration Agreement would have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain all applications arising out of the arbitration proceedings. Delhi High Court Error In Order Passed By Court In Arbitration Proceeding Can Be Corrected Under Sections 152, 153 Of CPC: Delhi High Court Case Title: ADO INDIA PVT. LTD. versus ATS HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED Case Number: I.A. 1612/2024 in ARB. P. 1432/2022 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has held that any error in an order passed by the court in the Arbitration Proceedings can be corrected under sections 152 and 153 of the CPC provided prejudice is not caused to the other party. Gujarat High Court Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Agreement Does Not Automatically Bar Jurisdiction Of Civil Court: Gujarat High Court Case Title: DEVSHIBHAI GOVINDBHAI LIMBANI & ORS. Versus DHAVALBHAI BHOGILAL VYAS & ORS. Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 188 The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi has held that mere existence of arbitration clause in the agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the civil court automatically. Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Petition U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Entertained After Lapse Of 3 Yrs From Date Of Cause Of Action Arising: J&K High Court Case Title: M/s Mir Sons Constructions Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union Territory of J&K Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 332 The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that the petition under section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot be entertained after lapse of 3 years from the date of cause of action having arisen. Appointment Of Managing Director/Chairman Of Party As Arbitrator Is Prohibited U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: J&K High Court Case Title: Avtar Krishan Suri V/s The Estate ...

Arbitration Weekly Round Up [9th December To 15th December 2024]

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags