Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: July 31 To August 6 , 2022

Supreme Court: Mere Use Of Words "Arbitration" Or "Arbitrator" In A Clause Won't Make It Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Case Title: Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. versus IVRCL AMR Joint Venture Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657 The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of the parties to refer the disputes to arbitration. The Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna noted that mere use of the word "arbitration" or "arbitrator" in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to arbitration. High Courts: Calcutta High Court: Clause "Every Effort" To Arbitrate; Must Be Referred To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Manika Sett versus Sett Iron Foundry and Ors The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is the intention of the parties that has to be deciphered while determining whether or not the parties must be referred to arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that where the arbitration clause between the parties provided that "every effort" should be made by them to settle the dispute by arbitration, the term "every effort" expanded the scope and ambit of the arbitration clause, and clearly conveyed the intention to refer the disputes to arbitration. Delhi High Court: Remedy Under RERA Act Is Not A Bar For Initiation Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court Case Title: Priyanka Taksh Sood & Ors. versus Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 752 The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute involving refund of payment under the 'Flat Buyer Agreement' from a real estate developer is arbitrable and is not barred by the existence of a concurrent remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the remedies available under the RERA Act are in addition to, and not in supersession of, the remedies available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), and that the application of concurrent remedies under the A&C Act is not barred under the RERA Act. Arbitral Tribunal Has The Power To Vacate/Modify Its Earlier Order: Delhi High Court Case Title: Airport Authority of India (Kolkata Airport) versus TDI International Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 750 The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitral tribunal would be guided by the principles of O. 39 R. 1&2 of CPC while considering the issue of vacation/modification of an interim order. The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the tribunal does not have the power of substantive review of its order, however, it does have the power to vacate or modify the conditions of the interim order. Arbitration Clause In The Annexure To The Agreement Would Be Binding On The Parties: Delhi High Court Case Title: Piyush Kumar Dutt versus Vishal Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 749 The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause contained in the annexure to the main agreement would be binding on the parties to that agreement. The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that in view of Section 11(6-A) the justiciability of claims and the defences can only be determined through adjudication by the arbitrator. Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause Not Signed By A Party; Parties Can Still Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court Case Title: Buildmyinfra Private Limited versus Gyan Prakash Mishra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 734 The Delhi High Court has ruled that even if the Agreement containing an Arbitration Clause has not been signed by a party to the dispute, the parties can still be referred to Arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that it is not necessary for the written document to be signed by all the parties, as long as the existence of an arbitration agreement can be culled out from the exchange of letters or other means of communication between the parties. If The Imposition Of LD Was Contingent On Extension Of Time, Recovery Of LD Is Not Time Barred: Delhi High Court Case Title: Shyama Power India Ltd. versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 733 The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot reject the claim of a party for refund of Liquidated Damages (LD) as barred by time if it was inextricably linked to the issue of Extension of Time (EOT) on which the decision of the competent authority was pending. The Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the period of limitation for the purpose of refund of LD would only begin from the date of the decision on the issue of EOT if the imposition of LD was contingent upon the EOT. Jharkhand High Court: Application Under...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: July 31 To August 6 , 2022

Parina Katyal

Tags