Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: June 2024

Supreme Court High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425 The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award as per Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (“Act”). The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that as per the mandate of Section 29A (4) of the Act, the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award vests within the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but there is no impediment for the High Court who is exercising the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to extend the time limit. Delhi High Court [Arbitration Act] Section 29A Allows Extension Requests Even After Arbitrator's Mandate Expires: Delhi High Court Case Title: Glowsun Powergen Private Limited Vs Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited Case Number: O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 120/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not preclude the consideration of applications for extension of the arbitrator's mandate filed after the expiration of the mandate. [Arbitration Act] General Explanation Of Intra-departmental Analysis And Discussions Doesn't Constitute Credible Explanation For Delay In Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd (Tcil) Vs Ngbps Ltd Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 171/2019 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a general explanation of intra-departmental analysis and discussions doesn't constitute as valid and credible explanation for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Delhi High Court Imposes Costs Of Rs. 50,000 For Unnecessarily Challenging And Questioning Of Arbitrator's Mandate Case Title: Ms. Sarika Chaturvedi Vs Agarwal Auto Traders & Ors. Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 48/2024 & I.A. 29792/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on a party for unnecessarily challenging and questioning the mandate of the arbitrator. The bench held that the party's intent was to create a stale mate. It held that repeated interventions of the court in arbitral proceedings are to be avoided and parties cannot force the arbitrators to recuse/withdraw. [Arbitration Act] Party Can't Challenge Procedural Order Passed By Arbitrator Under Section 9: Delhi High Court Case Title: Jagdish Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indag Rubber Limited Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 165/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that a party is not permitted to challenge a procedural order passed by an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that: “…it is observed that by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 the Petitioner is merely attempting to avoid the appellate provision under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 which clearly stipulates as to which orders are appealable.” Once Arbitration Agreement Is Confirmed, Court Should Refrain From Delving Into Other Issues: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Kld Creation Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd Vs National Highways And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Case Number: ARB.P. 321/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the role of the court is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that once the court confirms that the arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from delving into other issues, which are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. Conclusions Drawn By Arbitrator In Disregard Of Evidence On Record Makes Award Liable To Be Set Aside As Being Perverse And Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Divyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs M/S M2k Entertainment Pvt Ltd Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 162/2020 & I.A. 14331/2012, I.A. 10655/2022 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal. [Arbitration Act] Awarding Interest Rate Is Discretion Of Arbitrator, Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Space 4 Business Solution Pvt Ltd Vs The Divisional Commissioner Principal Secretary And Anr. Case Number: ARB.P. 360/2024 The Delhi High Court ...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: June 2024

Rajesh Kumar

Tags