Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 29th May To 4th June, 2022

Parina Katyal
5 Jun 2022 8:24 AM GMT
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 29th May To 4th June, 2022
x

Allahabad High Court Section 47 CPC Application Is Not Maintainable In Execution Proceedings UnderArbitration Act, 1940: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Bharat Pumps and Compressors versus Chopra Fabricators Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269 The Allahabad High Court has held that an application under Section 47 of the CPC is not maintainable in the execution proceedings...

Allahabad High Court

Section 47 CPC Application Is Not Maintainable In Execution Proceedings UnderArbitration Act, 1940: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Bharat Pumps and Compressors versus Chopra Fabricators

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269

The Allahabad High Court has held that an application under Section 47 of the CPC is not maintainable in the execution proceedings under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

The Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agarwal held that an arbitration award is not a decree as defined under Section 2(2) of CPC and therefore, the objection under section 47 of CPC, which can be filed only in execution of a decree (as defined under section 2(2) CPC), is not maintainable in the proceedings seeking execution of the award.

Delhi High Court

If MoU Arises Out Of An Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause, Reference Of MoUIs Valid: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Juki India Private Limited versus M/s Capital Apparels Technology Private Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 536

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an MoU has been signed by the parties for settlement of dues arising under an agreement, arbitration can be sought for violation of the terms of the MoU, even if the MoU does not contain an Arbitration Clause.

The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that since the MoU was a part of the dispute covered by the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement, the dispute between the parties could be referred to arbitration.

Once The Ledger Duly Reflects The Amount As Outstanding And Payable, The Period Of Limitation Would Run From The Said Date: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Seeds Corporation Ltd. versus National Agro Seeds Corporation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 532

The High Court of Delhi has held that acknowledgment of an amount as due and payable under the ledger/statement of accounts, constitutes a fresh cause of action and extends the period of limitation.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the period of limitation for an amount that is shown as outstanding in the book of accounts would get extended from the date of such acknowledgement in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

Embargo Under Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act Would Not Apply To A Distant Relative OfThe Parties: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Himanshu Shekar versus Prabhat Shekhar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 526

The High Court of Delhi has held that the embargo under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act would not apply to a distant relative of the parties.

The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that in terms of Explanation 1 and Entry 9 to the Seventh Schedule r/w Section 12(5), only spouse, sibling, child, parent or life partner of a party would be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator.

Multiple Arbitrations With Regard To Existing Claims On SameContract Are To Be Avoided: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Panipat Jalandhar National Highway 1 Tollway Pvt. Ltd. versus NHAI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 521

The High Court of Delhi has held that multiple arbitrations with regard to existing claims on same contract are to be avoided.

The Single Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that permitting the parties to have multiple arbitrations for the adjudication of the existing disputes related to the same contract would entail multiple observations.

Karnataka High Court

High Courts Without Original Civil Jurisdiction Require Commercial Division For International Arbitration: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ITI Limited versus Alphion Corporation & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 183

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that even with respect to a High Court that does not exercise an Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, a Commercial Division is required to be established for the purpose of considering applications and appeals arising out of an International Commercial Arbitration. The Court added that the said Commercial Division must comprise of a Single Judge.

The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj, held that though Section 4 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides for the establishment of a Commercial Division in the High Court that exercises an Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, it does not bar the establishment of a Commercial Division in a High Court that does not exercise the said jurisdiction.

Madras High Court

Enforcement Of A Foreign Arbitral Award Can Be Filed In More Than One High Court: Madras High Court

Case Title: NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd and Anr. versus TAQA India Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 232

The High Court of Madras has held that more than one High Court can exercise jurisdiction for the recognition and enforcement of a part of the arbitral award if the claims are decided for and against the parties thereto.

The Single Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the Court for the purpose of the enforcement of a foreign award would be the one within whose jurisdiction either the award debtor carries his business or its assets are located within its jurisdiction.

Rajasthan High Court

Award Cannot Be Remitted To The Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 34 (4) Of The A&C Act, If No Reasons and Findings Are Recorded: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Eptisa Servicios De Ingenieria SL versus Ajmer Smart City Limited

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that an arbitral award cannot be remitted back to the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) if there are no findings recorded in the arbitral award on the contentious issues.

The Single Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur reiterated that discretionary powers under Section 34 (4) of the A&C Act cannot be exercised under the guise of additional reasons or for filling up the gaps in the reasoning. The Court held that in the absence of any findings on the contentious issues in the award, no amount of reasons can cure the defect in the award.

Next Story