Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: June 19 – June 25, 2022

Bombay High Court: Arbitral Proceedings Cannot Be Imposed On A Debenture Trustee Under A Scheme Of Compromise, In The Absence Of An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court Case Title: HMG Industries Ltd. versus Canara Bank Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 224 The Bombay High Court has held that even though a Scheme of Compromise entered into under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 overrides all the agreements between the affected parties, arbitral proceedings cannot be imposed by a Company on a Debenture Trustee by virtue of the said Scheme only, in the absence of an arbitration agreement between them. The Single Bench of Justice A.K. Menon ruled that the Debenture Trustee was an independent obligation of the Company and thus, the arbitration clause contained in the Scheme was not binding on the Debenture Trustee Mere Pendency Of A Civil Suit Is Not An Absolute Bar To A Petition Under Section 11Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Priya Rishi Bhuta & Anr. versus Vardhaman Engineers and Builders & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 221 The High Court of Bombay has held that mere pendency of a Civil Suit is not an absolute bar to a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act as long as the petitioner can withdraw its suit before the defendant files its statement on the issue. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that it is also permissible for the Civil Court to consider an application of the plaintiff to permit withdrawal of the suit when there is an arbitration agreement, and refer the parties for arbitration. Gujarat High Court: A Party Is Not Entitled To Invoke The Arbitration Clause After Signing The Discharge Voucher Without Any Protest Or Demur: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited versus The New India Assurance Company Limited The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a party is not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause after it had signed the discharge voucher without any protest or demur, since no arbitrable dispute could be said to subsist. The Single Bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar held that an application for referring the dispute to arbitration could not be entertained merely on the ground that the party had, within 15 days from the receipt of an amount, contended that the said amount was received by it under duress. Court Can't Decide Disputed Questions Of Facts U/S 11(6) Arbitration Act, Question Of Arbitrability Can Be Examined By Arbitral Tribunal: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Ltd. versus Raysons Residency Pvt. Ltd. The High Court cannot decide disputed questions of facts in a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of arbitrator, the Gujarat High Court has held. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar observed, "All these issues including arbitrability can be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal itself." Himachal Pradesh High Court: The Writ Not Maintainable Against An Order Of The Arbitrator Dismissing An Application For Interrogatories: Himachal Pradesh High Court Case Title: M/s V. Kare Biotech and Ors. versus Hemant Aggarwal and Anr. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a writ petition would be non-maintainable against an order of the arbitrator dismissing the application for interrogatories. The Single Bench of Justice Satyen Vaidya held that the arbitration act is a complete code in itself which prohibits judicial interference except where so provided under the Act. Madhya Pradesh High Court: Invocation Of Section 9 Of The A&C Act; Need To Wait Termination Of Conciliation Proceedings Under MSME Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Case Title: M/S Ujas Associates versus M/S KJS Cement (India) Ltd. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), including Section 9, would come into operation only after the termination of the conciliation proceedings under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), in the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. The Bench, consisting of Justices Sheel Nagu and Maninder S. Bhatti, held that the powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot be invoked by the competent Court prior to the termination of the conciliation proceedings under the MSMED Act Meghalaya High Court: Justifiable Doubts Regarding The Independence Of Empanelled Arbitrators Would Always Exist: Meghalaya High Court Case Title: Jaguar Overseas Limited versus Union of India & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 20 The High Court of Meghalaya has held that if a contractor/ tenderer does not accept the names of the possible arbitrators that are listed on the panel prepared by the tenderee, the panel cannot be enforced since there would always be...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: June 19 – June 25, 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags