Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: January 2023

Supreme Court: Starting Point Of Limitation U/ Section 34(3) Arbitration Act In Cases Of Suo Motu Correction Of Award: Supreme Court Explains Case Title: USS Alliance versus State of Uttar Pradesh The Supreme Court has observed that the starting point for the limitation under Section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the party. Once the arbitral award has been amended or corrected, it is the corrected award which has to be challenged and not the original award, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh observed. 12 Months Time Limit Under Section 29A Arbitration Act Not Applicable To International Commercial Arbitration: Supreme Court Case Title: TATA Sons Pvt Ltd versus Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd The Supreme Court has held that the time limit of twelve months as prescribed in Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable for international commercial arbitration. "In terms of the amended provisions of Section 29A, arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are only expected to make an endeavor to complete the proceedings within twelve months from the date of competition of pleadings and are not bound to abide by the time limit prescribed for domestic arbitrations.", the bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha observed. High Courts Bombay High Court: Dispute Between Service Providers Can’t Be Referred to Arbitration: Bombay High Court Case Title: World Phone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. versus One OTT Intertainment Ltd. In Centre The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) is a self-contained Code, intended to deal with all disputes arising out of the Telecommunication Services provided in the country and therefore, the dispute between service providers which is likely to affect the consumers/subscribers, cannot be referred to arbitration. Specific Performance Of Agreement To Lease Can Be Sought Before Arbitrator; Bar Of Section 41 of PSCC Act Will Not Apply: Bombay High Court Case Title: Edufocus International Education LLP versus Yashovardhan Birla & Ors. The Bombay High Court has reiterated that dispute between parties arising under the Leave and License Agreement, emanating from a relationship of a licensor and licensee, cannot be referred to arbitration in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (PSCC Act), as per which the Small Causes Court alone would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar, however, observed that an Agreement to Lease merely contemplates to create a lease in the future and thus, the bar under Section 41 will not apply to the dispute arising under it. Thus, specific performance of the Agreement to Lease can be sought even before an Arbitrator, the Court held. Clause Contained In The Tax Invoice Amounts To An Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court Case Title: Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd versus MAD (India) Pvt Ltd The Bombay High Court has held that the clause contained in the invoices, which clearly stipulates a reference to arbitration, deserves to be construed as an arbitration clause. The single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre has observed that any document in writing exchanged between the parties that provides a record of the agreement and in respect of which there is no denial by the other side, would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and would amount to an arbitration clause. Award Against Guarantor Who Is Not Member Of Multi State Co-Op Society, Without Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Case Title: Deepti Prakash Ghate versus NKGSB Co. Op. Bank Ltd The Bombay High Court has set aside an award passed pursuant to an arbitral reference made under Section 84(1) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), since the award debtor was not a member of the Co-operative Society. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled that a dispute, which is not covered under Section 84 (1) of the MSCS Act, would not be capable of being referred to arbitration. Thus, the Court concluded that the arbitral award was rendered without jurisdiction against the petitioner/ award debtor. Issue Whether Main Claim Is Time Barred, Is An Issue On Merits; Must Be Decided In Arbitral Proceedings: Bombay High Court Case Title: TLG India Pvt Ltd versus Rebel Foods Pvt Ltd The Bombay High Court has ruled that while the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), seeking appointment of arbitrator, is to be examined by the Court, the...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: January 2023

ausaf ayyub

Tags