Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 22nd May To 28th May, 2022

Supreme Court: Arbitration Act - Dispose Sec 11(5) & 11(6) Applications Pending For Over 1 Year Within 6 Months : Supreme Court To High Courts Case Title: M/s Shree Vishnu Constructions versus The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service And Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523 The Supreme Court of India has made strong observations emphasising the need for High Courts to decide applications for appointments of Arbitrators at the earliest. A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has observed that if the arbitrators are not appointed at the earliest and the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrators are kept pending for a number of years, it will defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Act and it may lose the significance of an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. High Courts: Calcutta High Court: The Objection Regarding The Non-Applicability Of The MSMED Act To 'Works Contract' Is To Be Decided In Arbitration By The MSME Council:Calcutta High Court Case Title: NBCC (India) Ltd. versus The State of West Bengal and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 214 The Calcutta High Court held that objections regarding the non-applicability of the MSMED Act to works contract can be decided in arbitration by MSME Council. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj upheld the order of the Single Bench whereby the petitioner was referred to arbitration before the MSME Council with a direction that his objection regarding the non-applicability of the MSMED Act as the contract was a works contract would be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. S.11Arbitration Act | Interested Party Cannot Appoint An Arbitrator To Decide Disputes Between Parties: Calcutta High Court Case Title: New Eureka Travels Club versus South Bengal State Transport Corporation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 200 The Calcutta High Court, while adjudicating upon an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), has held that it is a settled law that neither an interested party can be appointed as an arbitrator nor can the said interested party appoint an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties. The Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that where a sole arbitrator is required to be appointed as per the parties, it is the Court that is to decide the sole arbitrator. Delhi High Court: A Party Cannot Dispute The Jurisdiction On Account Of Non-Existence Of The Arbitration Agreement After Submitting To The Jurisdiction Of The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court Case Title: Amrish Gupta versus Gurchait Singh Chima The High Court of Delhi held that a party cannot dispute the jurisdiction on account of non-existence of the arbitration agreement after submitting to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that generally, the arbitration clause contained in the main agreement would also fall when the validity of the main agreement is challenged and the dispute would be non-arbitrable. Plaintiff Is Not Entitled To Return Of Court Fees When The Parties Are Referred To Arbitration Under Section 8 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: A-One Realtors Pvt. Ltd. versus Energy Efficiency Services Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 502 The High Court of Delhi has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to return of Court Fess when the parties are referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the benefit of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act would only be available to the plaintiff when the parties are referred to arbitration for settlement in terms of Section 89 of the CPC and not under Section 8 of the A&C Act. Waiver Under Section 12(5) Of A&C Act Has To Be By An Express Agreement In Writing: Delhi High Court Case Title: AK Builders versus Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 490 The Delhi High Court has ruled that any right under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), that deals with the ineligibility of certain persons to be appointed as an arbitrator, can be waived of only by an express Agreement in writing entered into after the disputes had arisen between the parties. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru dismissed the contention that since the petitioner had participated in the arbitral proceedings it was precluded from raising any objections towards the appointment of the Arbitrator. The Court reiterated that a person who is ineligible to act as an arbitrator would also be ineligible to appoint an arbitrator. The Provisions For The Quantum Of Damages Under Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Would Apply To Arbitrations Under...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 22nd May To 28th May, 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags