Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: September 2022

Supreme Court: Arbitration Clause Has To Be Given Effect Even If It Does Not Expressly State That Decision Of Arbitrator Is Final & Binding On Parties: Supreme Court Case Title: Babanrao Rajaram Pund versus Samarth Builders & Developers Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 747 The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration clause has to be given effect even if it does not expressly state that the decision of the arbitrator will be final and binding on the parties. The deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies the intention of the parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise the annulment of arbitration clause, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka observed. Disputes Related To Tax Concessions Are Not Arbitrable:Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Shree Enterprise Coal Sales Pvt Ltd. versus Union Of India The Supreme Court has held that disputes related to tax concessions are not arbitrable. The division bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has observed that the High Court was in error in holding that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute was arbitrable. The Apex Court ruled that undoubtedly, a contractual dispute would be amenable to being resolved by arbitration, however, in the present case, the relief related to tax concessions was not of an arbitrable nature. Court Exercising Power U/Sec 9 Arbitration Act Not StrictlyBound By CPC ; Should Not Withhold Interim Relief On Mere Technicality: SupremeCourt Case Title: Essar House Private Limited versus Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited The Supreme Court observed that a court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not strictly bound by provisions of CPC and should not withhold relief on mere technicality. The Court ruled that proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief under Section 9, and that a strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice. High Courts Allahabad High Court: Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Without Protest, In Absence Of Agreement On Seat; Venue Is Also The Seat Of Arbitration: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/s. Zapdor-Ubc-Abnjv Delhi versus U.O.I. The Allahabad High Court has ruled that where the parties have failed to specifically mention the seat of arbitration and have participated in the arbitral proceedings at a place without any protest, the parties shall be said to have determined, by their conduct, the said venue of arbitral proceedings as also the seat of arbitration. Hence, the courts at the said place would have exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the arbitral proceedings. The Single Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra held that an order rejecting an application seeking return of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) involves no adjudication under Section 34 and hence, the same is not appealable under Section 37 of the A&C Act; therefore, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the said order. Bombay High Court: Accepting Terms And Conditions on Website Containing Arbitration Agreement, Valid: Bombay High Court Case Title: Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. versus Mohit Raghuram Hegde, Proprietor Creative Infotech The Bombay High Court has reiterated that reference of a dispute to arbitration can only be refused in cases of "serious allegations of fraud", which is made out when either of the tests propounded by the Apex Court in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. versus HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (2020), are satisfied. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni ruled that a declaration made by a party in the KYC executed by it, accepting the terms and conditions provided on the opposite party's website, which included an arbitration agreement, was sufficient for incorporation of an arbitration clause between them. Commercial Court Cannot Be Regarded As A "Person Or Institution" Under Section11(6) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Uttam Energy Ltd. versus M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. The Bombay High Court has ruled that the jurisdiction and power of the High Court in relation to the appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), has not been divested by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court added that the term "all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration", as provided under Section 10 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act, does not take within its ambit the application which is required to be filed under Section 11 (6) of the A&C Act before the High Court for seeking appointment of arbitrator(s). Reference Made Under MSMED Act; District...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: September 2022

ausaf ayyub

Tags