Weekly Round-Up of Arbitration Cases : April 24 to April 30, 2022

Supreme Court Group Of Companies Doctrine Can Be Applied To Bind Non Signatory To An Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. versus Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 416 The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on 27th April 2022, explained the 'Group of companies' doctrine which postulates that an arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed that a non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory.Supreme Court To Examine Conflicting Decisions On Retrospective Impact Of 2015 Amendment To Section 11(6)Arbitration Act Case Title: M/s Shree Vishnu Constructions versus The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service The Supreme Court has decided to examine whether Section 11(6) as amended by the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment Act), 2015 ("2015 Amendment Act") would be applicable to arbitral proceedings commenced before the Court prior to when the 2015 Amendment came into force on 23.10.2015, or the cases wherein notice was issued prior to 23.10.2015 or cases where notice invoking arbitration was issued prior to the amendments. A Division Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna noted that there were divergent views on this issue. Arbitral Tribunal Can Grant Post Award Interest On Interest Component Included In The Sum Of The Award: Supreme Court Case Title: Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd versus U.B. Engineering Ltd and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 409 The Supreme Court has held that the arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on the sum of the award which also includes the interest component. The Bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna reiterated that the word sum used under Section 31(7) of the A&C Act includes the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would be on both the amount awarded in respect of the substantive claims and the interest awarded on such claims. Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Submit Particulars of All Pending Section 11(6) Applications Case Title: M/s Shree Vishnu Constructions versus The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service and Ors. The Supreme Court has asked its Registry to seek particulars of the pending applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from all High Courts. It noted that the same shall reach the Apex Court by 06.05.2021. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna was hearing a plea assailing an order passed by the Telangana High Court, which had decided to dismiss an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of Arbitrator after 4 years. High Courts Bombay High Court Agreement On The Name Of The Arbitrator Would Not Amount To A Waiver Of Notice Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Malvika Rajnikant Mehta & Ors versus JESS Construction The High Court of Bombay has held that simply because the arbitration agreement provides for the name of the arbitrator, the same would not amount to a waiver of notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar has held that the use of the word "Unless otherwise agreed by the parties" in Section 21 means that the parties can dispense with the requirement of giving a notice of arbitration, however, the mere fact that the parties have named the Arbitrator would not imply that the parties have agreed to waive the requirement of the notice contemplated under Section 21 of the Act. Merely Because An Application Under Section 7 Of IBC Is Filed, It Is Not An Embargo On The Court Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section11 Of The A&C Act : Bombay High Court Case Title: Jasani Realty Pvt. Ltd. versus Vijay Corporation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 162 The High Court of Bombay has held that merely because an application under S.7 of IBC is filed before the adjudicating authority which is pending consideration does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application filed under S. 11 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni has held that an application filed under S.7 of the IBC creates an erga omnes effect or involves third party rights only after it has been admitted by the adjudicating authority, however, before its admission, there is no embargo on the power of the court to decide on an...

Weekly Round-Up of Arbitration Cases : April 24 to April 30, 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags