Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 28 August To 3 September, 2022

Bombay High Court: Notice Under Section 21 Of A&C Act Issued; Court Not Barred From Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 9: Bombay High Court Case Title: Relcon Infroprojects Ltd. & Anr. versus Ridhi Sidhi Sadan, Unit of Shree Ridhi Co.op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors The Bombay High Court has ruled that merely because a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to refer the disputes to arbitration is issued by a party, the Court is not barred from exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the A&C Act for interim measures. The Court added that it is not constrained to refer the parties to arbitration and convert the proceedings under Section 9 into an application under Section 17 of the A&C Act, to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal. Implicitly Admitted Liability Does Not Prevent Reference Of Dispute To Arbitration If Arbitration Agreement Exists: Bombay High CourtCase Title : USP Studios Pvt. Ltd. versus Ganpati Enterprises & Ors Observing that a judicial authority must make a reference to arbitration if even a semblance of dispute exists between two parties who have an arbitration agreement, the Bombay High Court has held that impliedly admitted liability cannot prevent reference of dispute to arbitration. Calcutta High Court: Arbitral Award With Contradictory Findings Is Liable To Be Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Case Title: State of West Bengal versus Tapas Kumar Hazra The High Court of Calcutta has held that an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator has given contradictory findings is liable to be set aside. The Bench of Justice Krishna Rao reiterated that an arbitral award wherein no reasons are given for arriving at a particular finding is also liable to be set aside. Delhi High Court: Award Passed By A Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est, It Cannot Be A Bar To The Maintainability Of Petition Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates Case Title: Geeta Poddar versus Satya Developers Pvt. Ltd. The High Court of Delhi has held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is non-est, therefore, it cannot be a bar to the maintainability of a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that passing of an award would not give sanctity to the non-est proceedings and the mere fact that the petitioner did not challenge the unilateral appointment under Section 14 of the Act cannot deprive it of the right to approach the court for appointment of independent arbitrator. Refusal Of The Defendant To Amicably Settle The Dispute Satisfies The Requirement Of Pre-Litigation Mediation Under Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High CourtCase Title: BOLT Technology OU versus Ujoy Technology Pvt. Ltd. The High Court of Delhi has held that when the plaintiff makes an offer to the defendant to amicably settle the dispute and the defendant refuses the offer then in that circumstance, the requirement of pre-litigation meditation stands satisfied. The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh while reiterating that pre-litigation mediation as provided under Section 12-A of the CCA is a mandatory provision, held that the conduct of the defendant in refusing to amicably settle the dispute violates the spirit of Section 12A of CCA, therefore, he cannot turn around and object on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement. MOU Between Private Parties Cannot Be Specifically Enforced; Party Not Entitled To Interim Relief Under Section 9 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Royal Orchids versus Kulbir Singh Kohli & Anr. The Delhi High Court has ruled that a MOU which is in the nature of a commercial transaction between two private parties is by its very nature determinable and hence, the said MOU can be terminated even in the absence of any termination clause contained in it. The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that since the MOU was not capable of specific performance due to the statutory bar contained in Section 14 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the party was not entitled to any interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Requiring ISRO's Commercial Arm 'Antrix' To Pay Over 560 Million USD To Devas Multimedia Case Title: Antrix Corporation Ltd. versus Devas Multimedia Private Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 812 The Delhi High Court has set aside a 2015 arbitral award directing Antrix Corporation Limited, commercial and marketing arm of ISRO, to pay US$ 562.2 million to Devas Multimedia Private Limited over wrongful repudiation of contract. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held that the arbitral award dated September 14, 2015 suffered from patent illegalities and fraud and was also in conflict with the Public Policy of India. Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Application...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 28 August To 3 September, 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags