Arbitration Monthly Digest - April 2024

Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court Directs Inquiry Against Officers Who Failed To File Arbitration Appeals Within Prescribed Limitation Case Title: Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2024] The Allahabad High Court has directed Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against officers who were responsible for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which were filed after a delay of 513 days. While dismissing the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that “the proceedings have been conducted in reckless manner which is other than bona fide.” Whether Claims Prior To Work Order Are Covered By The Arbitration Clause Or Not Is To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd, Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023 The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court at pre-arbitration stage under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar also reiterated that after the judgment in Perkins an interested party cannot act as or appoint a sole arbitrator. Arbitration Act | Section 6 Commercial Courts Act Is Enabling Provision, Doesn't Override Arbitration Agreement: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Appeal Case Title: North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd. The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction. It held that even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration agreement between the parties specifying a different jurisdiction based on their territorial situs. Court Under Section 19 Of MSMED Act, 2006 Empowered To Allow Predeposit In Installments: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S Docket Care Systems vs M/S Hariwill Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266 The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that expression “in the manner directed by such court” in Section 19 of the Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 gives the discretion to the court to allow the predeposit to be made, if felt necessary, in installments also. Bombay High Court No Requirement Of Fresh Section 21 Notice For Re-Commencing The Arbitration After The First Award Is Set Aside Under Section 34: Bombay High Court Case Title: Kirloskar Pneumatic Company v. Kataria Sales Corporation, Commercial Arbitration Petition, No. 16 of 2023 The High Court of Bombay has held that there is no requirement of Section 21 notice for re-commencing the arbitration after the first award is set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in such a situation there would be no requirement of a fresh invocation notice as the opposite party would already be aware of the existence of the dispute. Waiver Of Arbitrator's Ineligibility Must Be Made By Agreement In Writing, Section 12(5) Does Not Provide For Deemed Consent: Bombay High Court Case Title: Riak Insurance and Financial Services & Ors. vs HDFC Bank Limited Case Number: Arbitration Petition No. 30 of 2021 The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the ineligibility of the arbitrator could only be waived if both parties agree by an express agreement in writing as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Parties' consent cannot be implied otherwise. Group Of Companies | Absence Of Specific Prayer For Impleadment Of Non-Signatory Doesn't Preclude Arbitral Tribunal From Applying GOC: Bombay High Court Case Title: Cardinal Energy and Infra Structure Private Ltd. vs Subramanya Construction and Development Co. Ltd. Case Number: COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.2603 OF 2024 The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R I Chagla held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to decide whether the non-signatory is bound by the Arbitration Agreement and to implead the non-signatory. The Court held that the absence of a specific prayer for the impleadment of a non-signatory in a Section 11 Application does not preclude the application of the 'group of companies' doctrine by the arbitral tribunal. Can A Section 29A Application Be Filed In The ...

Arbitration Monthly Digest - April 2024

ausaf ayyub

Tags