Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 12 June To 18 June, 2022

Bombay High Court: Court Can Pass An Order Of Interim Measures Under Section 9Of The A&C Act Against A Third Party: Reiterates Bombay High Court Case Title: Choice Developers versus Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd. & Ors. The Bombay High Court has reiterated that the Court is free to pass an order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to grant interim measures of protection against a third party who is impleaded in the petition filed under Section 9. The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that the minority members of a Society cannot act against the will of the majority members of the Society and obstruct the redevelopment work in the Society. Gujarat High Court: Claim Petition Without Verification, Writ Not Maintainable Against An Order Of Dismissal Of Claim: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Pahal Engineers versus The Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board The High Court of Gujarat has held that a writ petition would not be maintainable against an order of the arbitral tribunal whereby it has rejected the claim of a party on the ground that its pleadings were without verification and affidavit to that effect. The Single Bench of Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati held that once the arbitrator rejects the claims of a party that essentially means a final closure of its claims and the order of the arbitrator can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Proceedings Under Section 9 Of A&C Act Cannot Be Used For Enforcement Of The Conditions Of A Contract: Gujarat High Court Case Title: Kanhai Foods Ltd versus A and HP Bakes The Gujarat High Court has ruled that issues involving enforcement of the conditions of a Franchise Agreement cannot be the subject matter of an application for interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench, consisting of Justices N.V. Anjaria and Samir J. Dave, held that conditions of a contract can be enforced only when the rights of the parties are finally adjudged and crystallised by the Arbitrator. Karnataka High Court: Order Terminating The Arbitration Not Challenged; Can't File Section 8 Application Later: Karnataka High Court Case Title: BEML Ltd. versus Prakash Parcel Services Ltd. The High Court of Karnataka has held that a subsequent Section 8 application would be non-maintainable when the order of the arbitrator accepting objection to its jurisdiction was not challenged. The Division Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J.M. Khazi held that once the order of the arbitrator terminating the arbitral proceedings has attained finality, it would not be open for a party who did not lay any challenge to the order to contend that the dispute once again be referred to arbitration. Punjab and Haryana High Court: Even In The Absence Of An Arbitration Agreement, The Matter Can Be Referred To Arbitration Under Section 18 Of The MSMED Act: Punjab And Haryana High Court Case Title: M/s SGM Packaging Industries versus M/s Goyal Plywood LLP The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that even in the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the matter can be referred to arbitration under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). The Single Bench of Justice Lisa Gill reiterated that the MSMED Act being a Special Act shall prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). Telangana High Court: Application For Enforcement Of Arbitral Award Would Lie Only Before The Court Where Application Under Section 9 And/ Or Section 34Has Been Filed: Reiterates Telangana High Court Case Title: M/s. India Media Services Private Limited versus M/s. SBPL Infrastructure Limited The Telangana High Court has reiterated that in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), only the Court where an application under Section 9 and/or Section 34 has been filed would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for enforcement of the arbitral award. The Bench, consisting of Justices P. Naveen Rao and Sambasivarao Naidu, held that Section 42 of the A&C Act opens with a non-obstante clause and, therefore, even though an arbitral award is treated as a 'decree in fiction' by a Civil Court, Section 42 of the A&C Act would cover within its ambit all provisions dealing with execution of an award. If 'Value of Commercial Dispute' Is More Than Rs. One Crore, Section 9 Application Under A&C Act Would Lie Only Before The Commercial Court: Telangana High Court Case Title: Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited versus M/s. A.A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd. The Telangana High Court has ruled that if a dispute constitutes a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2 (1) (c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the dispute is the subject matter of a domestic ...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 12 June To 18 June, 2022

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 12 June To 18 June, 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