Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: March 2023

High Courts Allahabad High Court: When Arbitration Clause Covers All The Disputes, Jurisdiction Can’t Be Limited To A Particular Dispute: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Agra Development Authority Agra vs. M/s Baba Construction Pvt Ltd The High Court of Allahabad has held that when the arbitration clause covers all the disputes arising out of the contract within its ambit then the scope of the arbitrator cannot be limited to decide only a particular dispute. The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta held that all the disputes that have arisen before the appointment of the arbitrator can be referred to him for adjudication as the claim for damages which has been made prior to invocation of arbitration, becomes a dispute within the meaning of the provisions of 1996 Act and the arbitrator’s jurisdiction cannot be confined to a particular dispute. Bombay High Court: Clause Captioned As “Arbitration”, Doesn’t Conclusively Imply Mandatory Nature Of Arbitration: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt Ltd vs. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd The Bombay High Court has ruled that the use of the word ‘can’ in the relevant clause has the effect of qualifying Arbitration as a mode of settlement, and the mere fact that a particular clause is captioned as “Arbitration”, does not conclusively imply the mandatory nature of arbitration when the option is left to the parties to settle their disputes through arbitration. Arbitration Clause Can Be Invoked By Assignee Of Rights Under Contract: Bombay High CourtCase Title: M/s. Siemens Factoring Pvt Ltd vs. Future Enterprises Pvt Ltd The Bombay High Court has ruled that an arbitration agreement is assignable, just as any other contract, and where the obligations and rights under an Agreement, containing an arbitration clause, are assigned in favour of an assignee, the remedy of arbitration would also stand assigned in its favour. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that there was no need of separate execution of an arbitration agreement between the parties in view of the fact that all the rights in favour of the original party to the arbitration agreement (assignor) had been assigned in favour of the assignee/ claimant, and the said assignment was specifically acknowledged by the opposite party. Arbitrator’s Direction For Disclosure Of Not Relevant Information Is An Order Under S. 19 And Not 17 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Sara Chemicals and Consultants vs. Deepak Nitrite Ltd The Bombay High Court has ruled that no appeal is maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) against the order of the Arbitral Tribunal directing the party to disclose the contents of sealed envelope submitted by it at the time of tendering of evidence, since the same did not relate to the subject matter of arbitration nor was it a subject matter of the claim/counter claim raised by the parties and thus, it fell outside the purview of Section 17. Though Borrower Can File Civil Suit Despite The Remedy Of Counter Claim In DRT, In Light Of Section 8 Of The A&C Act, Bombay High Court Refers The Parties To ArbitrationCase Title: Mantras Green Resources Ltd. & Ors. vs. Canara Bank The Bombay High Court has reiterated that the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only in respect of the applications filed by banks/ financial institutions for recovery of debt, however, it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try a suit filed by the borrower. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre remarked that even though a remedy is available to the borrower to file a counterclaim in the application filed by the bank/financial institution before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the same does not bar the borrower to file a civil suit raising an independent claim against the bank/financial institution. Not Necessary For Party To Raise Objection Regarding Unilateral Appointment Before The Arbitrator, Can Be Raised In S. 34 Petition: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Hanuman Motors Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs. M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd The Bombay High Court has ruled that when one of the parties to the dispute has an overwhelming and unilateral power to appoint a Sole Arbitrator, the same completely vitiates such an appointment as the same is hit by Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). While dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the Court held that it was not necessary for the petitioner to raise an objection regarding the unilateral appointment before the arbitrator, to be able to raise the same in a Section 34 petition to challenge the arbitral award. Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Has No Jurisdiction To Conduct Arbitration Dispute Arising Under A Works Contract:...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: March 2023

ausaf ayyub

Tags