Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: March 12 To March 18, 2023

Bombay High Court: Arbitrator’s Direction For Disclosure Of Not Relevant Information Is An Order Under S. 19 And Not 17 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Case 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 Arbitration Case 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. Calcutta High Court: Calcutta High Court Criticizes The Approach Of Finance And Banking Companies Unilaterally Appointing The Arbitrator; Refuses To Enforce ‘Unilateral Appointment Award’ Case Title: Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd vs. Amrapali Enterprises The High Court of Calcutta has deprecated the practice of banking and financial institutions unilaterally appointing the arbitrator. It refused to enforce an award passed by an arbitrator that was unilaterally appointed by the petitioner. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf has held that an arbitration award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitration is non-est and its enforcement would be refused under Section 36 of the A&C Act even if the award was not set aside under Section 34. Delhi High Court: Antrix Devas Deal: Delhi High Court Upholds Single Judge's Decision Of Setting Aside 2015 Arbitral Award, Says Fraud 'Serious And Complex' Case Title: Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd vs. Antrix Corporation Limited & Ors. The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed an appeal against single judge’s order setting aside a 2015 arbitral award by which Antrix Corporation Limited, commercial and marketing arm of ISRO, was required to pay US$ 562.2 million to Devas Multimedia Private Limited over wrongful repudiation of a contract. A division bench of Chief Justice Satish and Justice Subramonium Prasad in its judgment on the appeal moved by Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited said it is "well established" that Devas was incorporated with fraudulent intentions so that it could enter into the agreement with Antrix. 2017 Airport Metro Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Centre, Delhi Govt For Payment Of Unpaid Dues To Reliance Infra By DMRC Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Union of India and Delhi government to forthwith attend to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC)'s request for extension of sovereign guarantee or subordinate debt to enable it make payment of dues to Reliance Infra-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) under the 2017 arbitral award.'Governments Can’t Shirk From Liability To Abide By Judgments, Decrees & Awards': Delhi High Court Lifts Corporate Veil In DAMEPL-DMRC Dispute Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that the Union of India and Delhi Government are in complete control of affairs of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and must be commanded to take appropriate steps to enable the corporation to meet the obligation of making payment of dues to Reliance Infra-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) under a 2017 arbitral award. Lifting the corporate veil, Justice Yashwant Varma observed that the governments cannot shirk from their liability to abide by binding judgments, decrees and awards. Section 9 Of The Arbitration Act Does Not Envisage The Restoration Of Terminated Contract: Delhi High Court Case Title: Yash Deep Builders vs. Sushil Kumar Singh The High Court of Delhi has held that the scope of Section 9 of the A&C Act does...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: March 12 To March 18, 2023

Parina Katyal

Tags