Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 1st May to 7th May 2022

Supreme Court "Group Of Companies" Doctrine Needs Relook, Says Supreme Court; Refers Issues To Larger Bench Case Title: Cox and Kings Limited versus SAP India Private Limited and Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 455 The Supreme Court has referred various aspects regarding the application of the doctrine of 'Group of Companies', which is often utilised to bind non-signatories to an Arbitration Agreement, to a larger Bench. "There is a clear need for having a relook at the doctrinal ingredients concerning the group of companies doctrine", observed a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna. The Power Of The Arbitral Tribunal To Award Interest Is Discretionary And Subject To An Agreement Between The Parties: Supreme Court Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452 The Supreme Court has held that the power of the arbitral tribunal to award interest is subject to an agreement between the parties to the contrary. The Court held that the tribunal cannot award interest if the parties have agreed otherwise. The Division Bench of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai held that when the parties have an agreement between themselves that governs the issue of interest, the arbitrator would lose its discretion and will be guided by the agreement between the parties. Application Under Section 11(6) Not Maintainable For Appointment Of Arbitrator In Absence Of A Written Agreement Between Parties:Supreme Court Case Title: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal versus Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454 The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a difference between the arbitrator appointed under Section 11(5) and under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and failing any written agreement between the parties on the procedure for appointing an arbitrator (s) under Section 11(2), application for appointment of arbitrator (s) shall be maintainable under Section 11(5) and not under Section 11(6). The Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that once the dispute is referred to arbitration and the sole arbitrator is appointed by the parties by mutual consent, the arbitration agreement cannot be invoked for the second time. High Courts Calcutta High Court Post-Award Interest Is Not Advisory But A Mandate Of The A&C Act: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Future Market Networks Limited versus Laxmi Pat Surana & Anr. Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 156 The Calcutta High Court has ruled that award of future or post-award interest is not advisory but a mandate of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and it should be given its due weightage. The Single Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya reiterated that post award interest is a safeguard against delayed payment of the amount awarded to the award holder. Delhi High Court Inordinate And Unexplained Delay In Rendering Arbitral Award Is Against Public Policy Of India: Delhi High Court Case Title: Director General Central Reserve Police Force versus Fibroplast Marine Pvt. Ltd. The Delhi High Court has ruled that inordinate and unexplained delay in rendering the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India and is amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that award of damages arbitrarily and without any basis also falls foul of the public policy of India. S.11 Arbitration & Conciliation Act | Not Necessary To Go Into Merits Of Claim/ Counter-Claim For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Delhi High Court Case Title: OYO Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd. versus Parveen Juneja & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 389 The Delhi High Court has observed that in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator, High Court is not to go into the merits of the claim or the counter-claim, if any, of the parties. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that the High Court has to examine as to whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and there are any disputes unless ex-facie it is apparent from the record that the disputes are a mere deadwood. Jharkhand High Court Second Application For Appointment Of Arbitrator Is Maintainable, Even Though No Liberty Has Been Granted By Court While Setting Aside The Award: Jharkhand High Court Case Title: M/s Modern Construction Company versus State of Jharkhand The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that after an arbitral award has been set aside and quashed by the Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), an application under Section 11(6)(c) of the A&C Act for appointment of an arbitrator afresh is...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 1st May to 7th May 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags