Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 14 to 20 August 2023

Supreme Court: Arbitration Award Cannot Be Set Aside On Mere Possibility Of An Alternative View On Facts Or Interpretation Of Contract: Supreme Court Case Title: Konkan Railway Corporation Limited vs Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking The Supreme Court observed that Arbitration awards cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract. The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is exercised only to see if the Arbitral Tribunal’s view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said. High Courts: Allahabad High Court: Intention To Arbitrate Can Be Derived From Agreement Clauses Read With Letters Exchanged Between Parties: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Anand Agarwal and Anr. vs Dr. Narendra Malhotra and Anr. The Allahabad High Court has held that the intent of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration can be derived from the clauses of their agreement read along with the letters exchanged between them. Section 11 Application Not Maintainable If Objection To Jurisdiction Of Arbitrator Rejected By Arbitral Tribunal: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (Puvvnl) vs M/S Prabha Mvomni (Jv) The Allahabad High Court has recently held that to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, once the same has been rejected by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party has to challenge the final award. Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the High Court is not maintainable to that effect. Calcutta High Court: Application For Removal Of Arbitrator Must Be Made Before Same ‘Court’ As Envisaged In S.2 (i) (e) & S.42 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court Case Title: M/s. Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of West Bengal The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an application filed by M/S Gammon Engineers and Contractors Private Limited (“petitioners”) u/s 11(6), 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’), for removal of arbitrator while challenging their unilateral appointment. In dismissing the application, a single-bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf held that a challenge for withdrawal/removal of arbitrator would not be maintainable before the High Court, since an earlier Section 9 application for interim relief had been filed before the Jalpaiguri District court. Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Incorporated By Reference, Without Clear Intention Of Parties: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Kobelco Construction Equipment India Private Limited vs Lara Mining & Anr. The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed applications for interim relief filed by Kobelco Construction Equipment India Private Limited under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”). The single-bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya dismissed the prayer for an interim injunction on the respondents, holding that the petitioners could not be allowed to incorporate an arbitration clause by-reference from the ‘Master’ agreement to the ‘Settlement’ agreement in the absence of unambiguous intention of both parties. Delhi High Court: Equilibrium Is Disturbed Where The Party Drawing Up The Panel Of Arbitrator Is Given A Further Right To Accord Its “Confirmation” To Nomination Made By Other Party: Delhi High Court Case Title: Steelman Telecom Limited vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited The Delhi High Court has held that the equilibrium is disturbed where the party drawing up the panel of arbitrator is given a further right to accord its “confirmation” to nomination made by the other party. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE), the appointment of an arbitrator from a panel maintained by the other party is not invalid as it seeks to counterbalance the right of one party to draw a panel of arbitrator with the right of the other party to make the appointment from such a panel, however, it must be a broad panel as held by the Apex Court in Voestalpine Schienen. Designation Of Venue Would Override A Generic ‘Exclusive Jurisdiction’ Clause: Delhi High Court Case Title: Reliance Infrastructure Ltd vs Madhyanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd The High Court of Delhi has held that a venue where the arbitral proceedings were anchored is essentially the ‘seat of arbitration’ and it would override a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause. It held that a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause is not a contrary indicia that prevents the venue from becoming the seat of arbitration. Pre-Arbitration Reference To DRC Would Not Be A Bar To Appointment Of Arbitrator When The Chief Engineer Has Failed To Respond To Notice Of Dispute: Delhi High Court ...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 14 to 20 August 2023

Parina Katyal

Tags