Weekly Digest Of Arbitration Cases: April 17 - April 23, 2022

Supreme Court 1. Arbitrators Must Say Upfront Their Fees For The Number Of Sittings, Opines Supreme Court During Hearing Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. versus Afcons Gunanusa The Supreme Court, while hearing on the issue of fixation of standards for fees for arbitrators, has emphasized on "upfront" fixation of arbitrator's fee. The Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant was considering the issue regarding the mandatory nature of the 'model' fee scale for arbitrators prescribed under the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 2. Arbitral Tribunal Can't Direct Interim Deposit Of Amount In Dispute When Liability To Pay Is Seriously Disputed: Supreme Court Case Title: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. versus John Tinson and Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389 The Supreme Court has held that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot pass an order by way of interim measure under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to deposit the amount involved in the dispute, in a case where the liability to pay such an amount is seriously disputed and the same is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. A Bench comprising of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna partly allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Delhi High Court, which affirmed the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 directing the appellant to deposit the entire rental amount even when the liability of the said amount was yet to be considered by it. High Courts Allahabad High Court 1. Application For Extension Of Time For Passing The Award Lies Only Before The High Court Which Appointed The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. versus Manish Engineering Enterprises The Allahabad High Court has held that the Court for the purpose of an application under S. 29A of the A&C Act would only be the High Court that appointed the arbitrator. The Single Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held that the Principal Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for an extension of time. The Court held that Sub-section 6 of Section 29A allows the Court to substitute the arbitrator(s) and conferring this power on the Principal Civil Court would lead to an inconceivable situation where the mandate of an arbitrator appointed by the High Court could be substituted by an inferior Court. 2. Electricity Act Will Not Apply When Contract Is For Supply Of Materials Simpliciter, Court Can Appoint Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Case Title: CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. versus U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 191 The Allahabad High Court has held that the embargo under S.86 of the Electricity Act which provides that only the Regulatory Commission can appoint an arbitrator does not apply when the agreement is for supply simpliciter and does not have an element of transmission, distribution, and trading of electricity, and that the Court can appoint an arbitrator in such cases. The Single Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra held that a party that has supplied some material for the construction of an electricity sub-station would not fall within the meaning of a licensee or supplier under the Electricity Act, and when the contract is purely commercial arising out of a contract for supply and does not involve an element of trade in electricity, the provisions of Electricity Act are not attracted. Bombay High Court 1. Court Lacking Jurisdiction To Appoint An Arbitrator, Cannot Do So Based On No Objection By The Opposite Party: Bombay High Court Case Title: Purushottam s/o Tulsiram Badwaik and Ors. versus Anil s/o Hariram Malewar and Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 146 The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Court cannot appoint an Arbitrator when the only proceeding before it is an application for grant of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), solely on the ground that the opposite party has not objected to the appointment of an Arbitrator. The Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that even if an arbitration clause exists, appointment of an Arbitrator can only take place in accordance with the law. The Court added that merely because no objection is endorsed by the opposite party, a Court will not be foisted with the jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator. 2. Court Can't Grant Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of A&C Act, If The Contract Is Determinable: Bombay High Court Case Title: Chetan Iron LLP versus NRC Ltd. The Bombay High Court has held that an application for interim relief in the form of specific performance of the contract would not be maintainable when the nature of the contract is determinable. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni has...

Weekly Digest Of Arbitration Cases: April 17 - April 23, 2022

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Weekly Digest Of Arbitration Cases: April 17 - April 23, 2022

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers