Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 8th May to 14th May, 2022

Supreme Court High Court Cannot Terminate The Mandate Of Arbitrator In Application Under Section 11(6) Of Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal versus Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454 The Supreme Court has observed that a dispute/controversy on the mandate of the arbitrator being terminated on the ground mentioned in section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be decided on an application filed under section 11(6) of the Act. The Supreme Court ruled that such a dispute has to be raised before the "court", as defined under section 2(e) of the Act. High Courts Andhra Pradesh High Court Arbitration Clause In Unstamped Charter Party Agreement Can Invoke Jurisdiction Under Section 9 Of A&C Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: VR Commodities Private Limited versus Norvic Shipping Asia Pte. Ltd. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that an arbitration clause contained in a substantive agreement is an independent and autonomous clause, and even if the substantive agreement is not duly stamped as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the arbitration clause is admissible in evidence before the Court who can take into consideration the arbitration clause to decide an application for grant of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy, held that since the arbitration agreement is not chargeable with stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, by applying the doctrine of separability the arbitration agreement is admissible in evidence before the Court since it is a separate contract. Bombay High Court The Court Shall Refer The Parties To Arbitration When There Is A Duality Of Expert Opinion As To The Genuineness Of The Agreement: Bombay High Court Case Title: M/s Atul & Arkade Realty versus I.A. & I.C. Pvt. Ltd The Bombay High Court has held that when an allegation as to the fraud and forgery committed in the execution of the agreement is made and there is a duality of expert opinion on the genuineness of the agreement, the court shall refer the matter to the arbitrator. The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar has held that when the underlying document in which the arbitration agreement is contained is alleged to be affected by fraud and forgery and there is uncertainty as to the veracity of the signatures on the agreement, the Court shall appoint the arbitrator to decide on the dispute. Claim For Recovery Of Security Deposit Or Damages Under License Agreement Is Arbitrable & Not Barred By Section 41 Of The Small Cause Courts Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Bafna Motors Private Limited versus Amanulla Khan The Bombay High Court has reiterated that where the parties to a Leave and License Agreement are governed by an Arbitration Agreement, determination of the dispute relating to recovery of the security deposit under the said License Agreement through arbitration is legally permissible. The Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar held that the expression "charges" as provided under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, which confers exclusive jurisdiction to the Small Causes Court with respect to a dispute between a licensor and a licensee relating to recovery of an immovable property situated in Greater Bombay or recovery of licence fee, charges or rent, cannot subsume in its fold a claim for damages. Calcutta High Court Order Passed By Court Under Section 36 Of A&C Act Is An Interim Order, Can Be Modified On Grounds Of Financial Hardship: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation versus Reliance Infrastructure Ltd Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 164 The Calcutta High Court has ruled that financial hardship and financial indebtedness are sufficient grounds for modifying an order passed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to direct the award debtor to deposit the awarded amount by way of cash security. The Single Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the security directed to be deposited by a Court under Section 36 of the A&C Act should be real and realisable, and it ought not to be illusory Delhi High Court Right To First Refusal Cannot Be Exercised After Making A Counter-Offer To The Seller: Delhi High Court Case Title: Gujarat Gas Ltd. versus Vedanta Ltd and Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 444 The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot demand its 'Right to First Refusal' after making a counter-offer to the seller. The Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that when the party that has been given the right to first refusal (RoFR) makes a counter-offer, the seller becomes entitled to sell the subject goods to the third parties. Liquidated Damages...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 8th May to 14th May, 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags