Arbitration Weekly Roundup: July 08 - July 14, 2024

Supreme Court Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445 Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) called upon the Bar to urge only the legally permissible grounds in the arbitration proceedings carried under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “When members of the bar take up so many grounds in petitions under Section 34, which are not covered by Section 34, there is a tendency to urge all those grounds which are not available in law and waste the Court's time. The time of our Courts is precious, considering the huge pendency. This is happening in a large number of cases. All this makes the arbitral procedure inefficient and unfair. It is high time that the members of the Bar show restraint by incorporating only legally permissible grounds in petitions under Section 34 and the appeals under Section 37.", the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal said. The Court believed that the growing tendency amongst the members of the bar to rely upon a large number of precedents, whether relevant or irrelevant, results in a very long hearing before the Courts in Sections 34 and 37 proceedings. S. 4 Limitation Act Can't Be Invoked Using 30-Day Extension For Arbitration Appeals Filed Beyond 3-Months From Award: Supreme Court Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 7426 of 2023 Case Title – State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 454 The Supreme Court reiterated that if an arbitral award is challenged beyond the three-month limitation, the benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act will not be available. The Court held that the 30-day extension period mentioned in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be included in the "prescribed period" in Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1963. Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides relief in case the court is closed on the day of expiry of the "prescribed period" for instituting a suit, appeal or application. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal dismissed the State of West Bengal's appeal challenging Calcutta High Court's decision that dismissed its petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Allahabad High Court [Arbitration Act] Retroactive Application Of Judicial Decisions To Arbitral Awards Would Create Legal & Procedural Chaos: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Savitri Devi v. Union of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430 [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. – 210 of 2023] Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 430 Elucidating on the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Ors 2019, the Allahabad High Court has held that “retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos.” For context, in Tarsem Singh (supra), the Apex Court held that the provisions regarding solatium and interest provided in the Land Acquisition Act would apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. The court also held that this ruling of the Supreme Court shall apply to all pending cases. The High Court was essentially dealing with an arbitration that had concluded in 2008. The Court held that reopening an arbitration because of a subsequent judicial decision would lead to instability and unpredictability in arbitral proceedings. Bombay High Court Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due To Arbitrator Relying On Non-Executed Agreement, Adopting Non-Judicial Approach Case title: Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited vs. Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta & Ors. (OS-COMAP-90-2020 and COMAP-91-2020) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 342 The Bombay High Court set-aside an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as the Arbitrator relied on a non-executed agreement for arriving at the decision. The Court stated that it can annul an arbitral award under Section 34 if the arbitrator adopted a non-judicial approach. The Division Bench of B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresa were considering a commercial appeal filed by the appellant against Bottom of Forma Single Judge Bench's decision to set aside the Arbitral Award under Section 34 of A&C Act. Calcutta High Court Even Without Further Allegation Of Bias Under Section 12(5) Of Arbitration Act, Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is Ineligible: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Shalibhadra Cottrade Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Case Number: Execution...

Arbitration Weekly Roundup: July 08 - July 14, 2024

Rajesh Kumar

Tags