Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11 September To 17 September 2022

Supreme Court: Disputes Related To Tax Concessions Are Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Shree Enterprise Coal Sales Pvt Ltd. versus Union Of India The Supreme Court has held that disputes related to tax concessions are not arbitrable. The division bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has observed that the High Court was in error in holding that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute was arbitrable. The Apex Court ruled that undoubtedly, a contractual dispute would be amenable to being resolved by arbitration, however, in the present case, the relief related to tax concessions was not of an arbitrable nature. Court Exercising Power U/Sec 9 Arbitration Act Not Strictly Bound By CPC ; Should Not Withhold Interim Relief On Mere Technicality: Supreme CourtCase Title: Essar House Private Limited versus Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited The Supreme Court observed that a court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not strictly bound by provisions of CPC and should not withhold relief on mere technicality. The Court ruled that proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief under Section 9, and that a strong possibility of diminution of assets would suffice. High Courts: Allahabad High Court: Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Without Protest, In Absence Of Agreement On Seat; Venue Is Also The Seat Of Arbitration: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/s. Zapdor-Ubc-Abnjv Delhi versus U.O.I. The Allahabad High Court has ruled that where the parties have failed to specifically mention the seat of arbitration and have participated in the arbitral proceedings at a place without any protest, the parties shall be said to have determined, by their conduct, the said venue of arbitral proceedings as also the seat of arbitration. Hence, the courts at the said place would have exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the arbitral proceedings. The Single Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra held that an order rejecting an application seeking return of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) involves no adjudication under Section 34 and hence, the same is not appealable under Section 37 of the A&C Act; therefore, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the said order. Calcutta High Court: Writ Maintainable Against An Award Passed By Statutory Arbitrator Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Sri Ganesh Chandra and Ors. versus The State of West Bengal and Ors. The Calcutta High Court has held that an award passed by the statutory arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 where neither the notice of arbitration was served nor the copy of the award was given to the appellants is violative of principles of natural justice. The Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Kausik Chanda held the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot be a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition against an award passed violating the principles of natural justice. Delhi High Court: Would Subsequent Agreement Cover Past Transactions? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court Case Title: OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. versus Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. The High Court of Delhi has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the High Court cannot examine an issue as to whether the arbitration clause in a subsequent agreement would govern past transactions of similar nature as it requires detailed consideration of clauses and surrounding circumstances. The Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Act does not permit the High Court to examine issues that would require an interpretation of the contract, therefore, all such issues are to be referred to arbitrator. Rejection Of Belated Application For Amendment Of Claim - Not An Interim Award: Delhi High CourtCase Title: Punita Bhardwaj versus Rashmi Juneja The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application for amendment of statement of claims on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage, does not constitute an interim award and thus, it is not challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). While observing the distinction between the rejection of application for amendment of claims and counter claims on the ground of limitation vis-à-vis on the ground that the amendment was sought belatedly, the single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that Section 23 (3) of the A&C Act vests...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11 September To 17 September 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags