Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 3 July To 9 July 2023
Parina Katyal
10 July 2023 8:30 AM GMT
Calcutta High Court: Interim Relief Under The A&C Act Obtained Without Disclosing Material Evidence, Calcutta High Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 50 Thousand On Each Petitioner Case Title: Omkar Tradecomm LLP vs Mayank Agarwal The High Court of Calcutta has held that a party approaching the Court for relief must do so with clean hands and is under an obligation to disclose...
Calcutta High Court:
Case Title: Omkar Tradecomm LLP vs Mayank Agarwal
The High Court of Calcutta has held that a party approaching the Court for relief must do so with clean hands and is under an obligation to disclose all material facts that have bearing on the adjudication of the issues in the case.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the doors of justice would be closed for litigants approaching the court with a case built on falsehood, fraudulent concealment or suppression of material facts. The Court recalled its earlier order wherein it had granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to a party that concealed material facts of the dispute from the Court at the time of seeking such relief. The Court imposed cost of Rs. 50 thousand on each of the petitioners.
Case Title: Jaldhi Overseas PTE Ltd vs Steer Overseas Pvt Ltd
The High Court of Calcutta has held that the Courts, while exercising powers under Section 48 of the A&C Act, cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its view with that of the arbitral tribunal. It reiterated that the scope of judicial interference at the stage of enforcement of foreign award is limited to the grounds mentioned under Section 48 and the court is only required to make a preliminary determination.
Delhi High Court:
Case Title: Microsoft Corporation vs Zoai Founder
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the inclusion of the arbitrator’s name in the “Hall of Fame” of a website created by him, based upon the fact that he had denied the maximum number of complaints under the “.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (INDRP), gives rise to a justifiable apprehension as to his neutrality.
The court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the arbitral award passed by the Arbitrator under INDRP while adjudicating the claim for transfer of a disputed domain name.
Case Title: M/s Abhijeet Angul Sambhalpur Toll Road Limited vs NHAI
The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal refusing to entertain additionalcounter-claims filed without making any application under Section 23 of the Act is not an ‘interimaward’, therefore, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act.
The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain held that order of the tribunal refusing toentertain additional counter-claims filed without requisite permission/authority of the tribunal is notan interim award as it neither conclusively settles any issue between the parties so to have the resjudicate effect nor forecloses the right of the aggrieved party to refile the counter-claims by seeking“authority” or permission on an application under section 23 of the Act.
Case Title: M/s Wave Geo-Services Pvt Ltd vs M/s Devi Engineering and Construction Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that the claimant’s claim cannot stand in the absence of a third entity in the arbitral proceedings, is an aspect touching upon the maintainability of the claim(s) sought to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. The court said that the said plea can be urged before a duly constituted Arbitration Tribunal and the same cannot preclude the claimant from seeking or invoking Arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement executed between the parties.
Gujarat High Court:
Case Title: TBEA Energy vs R K Engineering
The High Court of Gujarat has reiterated that the petition under Section 11 of the A&C Act for the appointment of the arbitrator by the Court would not be maintainable if the dispute is covered under the MSMED Act, 2006 and the provisions of the act are invoked. The bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav followed a line of earlier precents wherein the High Court has held that the provisions of MSMED Act prevail over the A&C Act and the resolution of dispute covered under the MSMED Act has to be in terms of Section 18 of the Act only and the procedure for the appointment of arbitrator under the A&C Act would have to give way to the special mechanism provided under the MSMED Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court:
Case Title: Sarvesh Rajput vs State of Madhya Pradesh
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the cause of action for referring the dispute to arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 arises on the date of the determination of the amount of compensation by the competent authority under Section 3G(1) of the Act. The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke held that though there is no period of limitation provided for referring the dispute to arbitrator under the said Section, however, it is governed by the residuary clause as contained under Article 137 of the Limitation Act wherein a period of 3 years is provided.
Case Title: Meinhardt Singapore Pte. Ltd vs Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the court cannot appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) when an overriding remedy is available to the party under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.
The bench of Justice Anand Pathak was dealing with an application filed under Section 11 of the A&C Act seeking appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in relation to a works contract.
The court held that since the contract awarded to the applicant by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation was a ‘Works Contract’, a remedy was available to the applicant to make a reference to the ‘Madhyasthan Tribunal’, i.e., the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1983.
