Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 10th July To 16th July, 2022

Supreme Court: Court Under Section 34,37 Arbitration Act Cannot Modify An Award ; It Can Only Remand: Supreme Court Case Title: National Highways Authority of India versus P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584 The Supreme Court observed that, under Section 34 or 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a Court cannot modify the award passed by the Arbitrator. The option would be to set aside the award and remand the matter, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna said. Counter-Claim Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because The Claims Thereunder Were Not Notified At The Pre-Arbitral Stage: Supreme Court Case Title: NHAI versus Transstroy (India) Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 586 The Supreme Court has held that the counter-claim of a party cannot be dismissed merely because the claims were not notified before invoking the arbitration. The Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna held that there is a difference between the word "Claim" and "Dispute", where the former may be a one-sided thing while the latter by its definition has two sides. It observed that once the conciliation failed, the entire gamut including the counter-claim/set off would form the subject matter of arbitration. High Courts: Andhra Pradesh High Court: The Arbitration Clause Contained In A Manual Issued By The Government As A Generic Guideline Is Not Binding: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: TBS India Telematic and Biomedical Services Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare The Andhra Pradesh High Court Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra has held that arbitration clause contained in a government manual as generic guidelines cannot be invoked by the parties. The Court also observed that there cannot be an arbitration clause in a sub-contract, or in a separate document when there is no binding agreement between the parties in the first place. Bombay High Court: Amendment To Section 34 Application Of The A&C Act Would Not Be Permissible If It Intends A New Challenge: Bombay High Court Case Title: Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd versus Central Warehousing Corporation The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court has held that an amendment to the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act would not be allowed if it leads to absolutely new grounds to challenge the award. The Single Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil held that in an appropriate case it is permissible to allow the amendment to application under Section 34 even beyond the period provided under Section 34(3) of the Act, however, the amendment can only add some facts to the pending challenge but it cannot be allowed if it constitutes a fresh challenge. Delhi High Court: Prima Facie Case Alone Does Not Entitle A Party To Relief Under Section 17 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Rajesh Kumar Pasricha Citation: Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 659 The Delhi High Court has ruled that a prima facie case alone does not entitle a party to relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures. The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that there were highly disputed questions of fact involved in the dispute relating to the interpretation of the agreement between the parties. Holding that the possible extent of the claim likely to be awarded to the claimant vide the arbitral award cannot be a foregone conclusion, the Court set aside the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the counter-claimant to secure a certain amount in an application filed under Section 17 of the A&C Act by the claimant for interim measures Even If The Principal Agreement Is Non-Existent, The Arbitration Clause Would Still Apply: Delhi High Court Case Title: National Research Development Corporation and Anr. versus Mak Controls and Systems Private Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 647 The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the principal agreement is non-existent, the arbitration clause contained therein would still apply. The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that since the issue of limitation and arbitrability was not conclusive against the party, the issue was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. Arbitration Clause Contained In A Tax Invoice Is Binding: Delhi High Court Case Title: Swastik Pipe Ltd. versus Dimple Verma Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 648 The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a tax invoice is binding between the parties. Noting that the opposite party had earlier received similar tax invoices, against which it had made payments, the Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao ruled that the party could not disown the clear stipulation contained in the...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 10th July To 16th July, 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags