Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 28 August to 3 September 2023

Court Can Within The Limited Scope Of Judicial Scrutiny Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act, Examine If Claims Are Frivolous Or Meritless: Bombay High Court

Case Title: 22Light vs OESPL Pvt Ltd

The High Court of Bombay has held that despite the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the Court would refuse to appoint the arbitrator when on a prima facie scrutiny of the material on record, it can come to a conclusion that claims sought to be arbitrated are frivolous and meritless.

Calcutta High Court:

Though Not Directly Enforceable, Order Of Emergency Arbitrator In A Foreign-Seated Arbitration A Supplemental Factor To Be Considered U/S 9 Petition: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Uphealth Holdings Inc. vs Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd

The Calcutta High Court has held that an order of the Emergency Arbitrator in a foreign-seated arbitration, while not directly enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&C Act) due to the absence of a provision akin to Section 17(2) of the Act in Part II, should nonetheless be considered by the Court as a supplemental factor under Section 9 of the Act.

Delhi High Court:

Principles Of Natural Justice Not Violated When The Opportunity To Make Oral Submission Is Not Availed: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CASA2 STAYS PVT LTD vs BBH COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT LTD

The High Court of Delhi has held that the principles of natural justice are not violated when the opportunity to make oral submissions on an issue was granted but not availed by the party. It held that no party has the absolute right to insist on his convenience in every respect.

Section 21 Notice Is A Mandatory Pre-Requisite For Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Amit Guglani vs L&T Housing Finance

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 21 notice is a mandatory pre-requisite for invoking jurisdiction of the Arbitrator under Section 21 of the A&C Act.

When There Are Two Interconnected Agreements With Conflicting Arbitration Clauses, The Clause Contained In The Main Agreement Should Be Given Primacy: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Amit Guglani vs L&T Housing Finance

The Delhi High Court has held that when there are two interconnected agreements with conflicting arbitration clauses, the arbitration clause contained in the main/umbrella agreement should be given primacy over the other clause.

Section 42 Bars Petitions In Different Courts; Fraud Or Collusion Allegations Can Only Be Examined By The First Court: Delhi HC

Case Title: Liberty Footwear Co. vs Liberty Shoes Ltd

The Delhi High Court has decided that if a petition under Section 9 is submitted to any court other than the one where the initial application was made, Section 42 of the A&C Act will prevent it.

Section 14 Of Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings U/S 34 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs Ram Avtar Gupta

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which provides for exclusion of time consumed in civil proceedings initiated before a Court not having the jurisdiction, applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

Section 34 Petition Filed Without Impugned Award And Statement Of Truth Is Non-Est: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports vs ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a Section 34 petition filed unaccompanied by the impugned award and without the statement of truth would not constitute a valid filing.

Sending Scanned Copy Of A Signed Arbitral Award Through Email Constitutes A Valid Delivery Under Section 31(5) Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports vs ERNST and YOUNG PVT LTD

The Delhi High Court has held that an email sent by the arbitral tribunal to the parties wherein the scanned copy of the signed award is attached constitutes a valid delivery of the award under Section 31(5) of the A&C Act.

Court Has Power To Issue Time Bound Directions To Collector Of Stamps To Decide On Unstamped Arbitration Agreements, Purpose Of Section 11(13) Of A&C Act Should Not Be Defeated: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Splendor Landbase Ltd vs Aparna Ashram Society

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act has the power to issue time bound directions to Collector of Stamps to decide on unstamped arbitration agreements to ensure that the mandate of Section 11(13) of the A&C Act that provides for expeditious disposal of Section 11 petition should not be defeated.