Arbitration Monthly Round Up: May 2024

Supreme Court Arbitrator's Power Under Section 32(2)(c) Can Be Exercised Only If Continuation Of Proceedings Has Become Unnecessary Or Impossible: Supreme Court Case Title: Dani Wooltex Corporation & Ors. vs SheilProperties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024 The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. The bench held that the mere existence of a reason for terminating the proceedings is not sufficient. The reason must be such that the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible. Court Doesn't Sit In Appeal Over Arbitral Tribunal's Interpretation Of Contract : Supreme Court Case Title : National Highway Authority of India v. M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 361 The Supreme Court held that it is for the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the construction of the terms of a contract and the Court under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not sit in appeal over the findings of the arbitrator Delhi High Court [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 bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right. The bench held that: “whether to grant or refuse the interest on the principle amount, is the absolute discretion of the learned Arbitrator.” 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. Court Has Authority To Appoint Sole Arbitrator Even Though Arbitration Agreement Specified Three-Member Tribunal: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition Case Title: M/S Twenty-Four Secure Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Competent Automobiles Company Limited Case Number: ARB.P. 24/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a contention that the court lacked the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator, even though the arbitration agreement specified a three-member tribunal. The bench held that because the parties have not been able to arrive at the name of an arbitrator, the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not premature and was maintainable under the law. Period Of Bonafide Negotiations May Be Excluded For Computing Period Of Limitation For Reference: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Blooming Orchid Vs Fp Life Education Foundation Case Number: ARB. P. 630/2024 & I.A. 10843/202 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held the period during which the parties were bona fide negotiating towards an amicable settlement may be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for reference to Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that in such cases, the entire negotiation history between the parties must be specifically pleaded and placed on record. Where Arbitration Seat Is Fixed, Only Such Court Shall Have Exclusive Jurisdiction To Entertain Application Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Abhimanyu Through Special Power Of Attorney Holder Vs Parmesh Construction Co. Ltd Case Number: ARB.P. 322/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that where the arbitration seat is fixed, only such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the cause of action arose at Noida, the agreement was executed at Noida, and the suit property is also situated at Noida. Therefore, the courts in Noida have jurisdiction over the appointment of an arbitrator. Court Fully Empowered To Extend Mandate Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Under Section 29A(4): Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd Vs M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: O.M.P. (MISC.) 6/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of...

Arbitration Monthly Round Up: May 2024

Rajesh Kumar

Tags