Monthly Digest Of Arbitration Cases : 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 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. 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 Allahabad High Court Section47 CPC Application Is Not Maintainable In Execution Proceedings Under Arbitration Act, 1940: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Bharat Pumps and Compressors v. Chopra Fabricators, Civil Revision No. 53 of 2022 Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 269 The Allahabad High Court held that an application under Section 47 of the CPC is not maintainable in the execution proceedings under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Single Bench of Justice Piyush Agarwal held that an arbitration award is not a decree as defined under section 2(2) of CPC and therefore, the objection under section 47 of CPC, which can be filed only in execution of decree (as defined under section 2(2) CPC), is not maintainable in the proceedings seeking execution of the award. 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...

Monthly Digest Of Arbitration Cases : May 2022

ausaf ayyub

Tags