Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 3 July To 9 July, 2022

Bombay High Court: Invocation Of Arbitration Has To Be In Clear Terms; Merely Stating Claims Would Not Suffice: Bombay High Court Case Title: M/s. D.P. Construction versus M/s. Vishvaraj Environment Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court has ruled that invocation of arbitration has to be in clear terms, as specified in Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and that a mere reference to the claims and disputes sought to be raised by a party, and the existence of an arbitration clause, would not itself mean that arbitration has been invoked by such a party. The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale observed that Section 21 of the A&C Act specifically refers to a request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration as regards the commencement of the arbitral proceedings. Hence, the Court ruled that unless there is a request by a party that the dispute is to be referred to arbitration, merely stating the claims and disputes in a notice would not suffice. Place Designated As The "Venue" Of Arbitration In Its Entirety, Is The"Seat" Of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Case Title: Priya Malay Sheth versus VLCC Health Care Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 242 The Bombay High Court has reiterated that whenever a place is designated as the "venue" of the arbitration proceedings in its entirety in an Arbitration Clause, the said place would necessarily be the "seat" of the arbitral proceedings. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that such part of the Arbitration Agreement wherein the parties had agreed upon the venue of the arbitration proceedings, would be required to be read as distinct and independent from the arbitral mechanism agreed between the parties. Calcutta High Court: "Interim Award Is A Stopover En-Route To The Destination To Final Adjudication Of The Dispute": Calcutta High Court Explains Case Title: Lindsay International Private Limited versus IFGL Refractories Limited Recently, the Calcutta High Court has discussed the concept of interim award under the Arbitration Act. The court was hearing a plea by Lindsay International seeking to set aside an order which the petitioners pleaded was an interim order in terms of the Act. Single judge bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the impugned decision did not qualify to be nor did it have the trappings of an interim award under Section 2(1)(c) or Section 31(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996; hence, the impugned order could not be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Delhi High Court: Objection Regarding 'Excepted Matter' Would Be An After-Thought If It Was Not Raised Before The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court Case Title: DSIIDC versus H.R. Builders Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 614 The High Court of Delhi has held that the objection regarding the excepted matter would be an after-thought if the same was not raised before the arbitral tribunal. The Division Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.G. Engineers versus UOI (2011) to hold that only the question of determination of the quantum of compensation for delay is an excepted matter and the issue if the compensation is payable is an arbitrable matter. Challenge Without Impugned Award, Vakalatnama, And The Attested Statement Of Truth, Non-Est In Law: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ircon International versus Reacon Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 607 The High Court of Delhi has held that a challenge petition filed without impugned award, vakalatnama, and verification is non-est in law. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru was dealing with a case where the petitioner had initially filed a challenge petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act without the impugned award, vakalatnama, and the statement of truth. Himachal Pradesh High Court: Petition Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act Would Be Non-Maintainable After Filing Of An Application Under Section 13 Of The Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Title: State of H.P. versus BMD Pvt. Ltd. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a party cannot file a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act after it has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by way of filing a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma held once the petitioner has failed to respond/object to the arbitration notice wherein the name of the arbitrator was mentioned within 30 days, there would be deemed consent on its behalf and it cannot object to the appointment of the named arbitrator at a later stage. Karnataka High Court: Section8 Of A&C Act Can't Be Invoked Based On A Non-Binding Arbitration Agreement: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Masters Management Consultants (India) Private Ltd. versus Nitesh Estates Limited The...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 3 July To 9 July, 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags