Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 07 to 13 August 2023

Supreme Court: Court Has No Power To Modify Award Under S. 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court Case Title: Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company vs Union of India The Supreme Court reiterated that a court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has no power to modify an arbitration award. The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act, permits the court to interfere with an award, sans the grounds of patent illegality, the bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta said. High Courts: Bombay High Court: Time Limit For Passing Award Under S. 29A Of Arbitration Act A Non-Derogable Provision, S.4 Of The Act Has No Application: Bombay High Court Case Title: Mahaveer Realities & Ors. vs Shirish J. Shah The Bombay High Court has ruled that even though the parties had participated in the arbitral proceedings continued by the Arbitrator after his mandate had expired, the same cannot amount to a waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The court remarked that Section 29A of the A&C Act that provides the time limit for passing the award, is a non-derogable provision and thus, Section 4 of the Act has no application. Calcutta High Court: ‘Fraudulent’ Conduct Of Railways Has Shocked Our Conscience: Calcutta HC Unconditionally Stays Arbitral Award, Directs Probe By Union Govt Case Title: Union of India and Anr. vs Rashmi Metaliks Limited The Calcutta High Court unconditionally stayed an award granted in favour of the South Eastern Railways (“SER”) under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 on grounds of fraud and corruption perpetrated by collusion between the parties in obtaining the impugned award. Delhi High Court: Delhi High Court Directs Release Of Rs. 16 Crores To Landmark Group As Per 2018 Arbitral Award Against Ansal Group Case Title: Landmark Property Development and Company Limited & ORS. vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited & Ors. The Delhi High Court has directed release of over Rs. 16 Crores deposited with the court Registry, in favour of the Landmark Group in the execution petition filed by it seeking enforcement of the arbitral award passed against the Ansal Group. In 2018, an Arbitral Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 46.01 Crores in favour of the Landmark Group against the Ansals in a dispute between the two business groups. If Head Of The Families Are Parties To Arbitration Agreement And Others Have Signed, All Are Bound By Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court Case Title: Mrs. Vinnu Goel vs Mr. Santosh Goel and Ors. The High Court of Delhi has held that all the members of the families would be bound by the terms and conditions of a settlement agreement executed between the heads of the two branches of families if they have signed the said agreement that pertains to the properties owned by them. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla held that a party appending its signature on an MoU is bound by the terms and conditions of such an agreement, including the arbitration agreement. It held that a party cannot escape the agreement merely on the ground that it was not expressly made a party under the agreement. Contractor Cannot Deny Payments To ‘Sub-Contractor’ Merely On The Ground That It Has Not Received The Payments From The ‘Employer’: Delhi High Court Case Title: Gannon Dunkerley and Co Ltd vs Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd, The High Court of Delhi has held that a contractor cannot deny payments to the ‘Sub-contractor’ merely on the ground that the contract is on back-to-back basis and it has not received the payments from the main employer. Claim Of Damages, Supplementary Agreement Executed Under Duress Can’t Come In The Way : Delhi High Court Case Title: NHAI vs M/s. T.K. Toll Private Limited The High Court of Delhi has held that a supplementary agreement executed by a contractor whereby it agrees to forego its claims cannot preclude him from claiming damages against the employer if the execution of such agreement was a pre-condition to the issuance of PCC necessary for collection of toll taxes in BOT contracts. Whether An Agreement Is A Works Contract Or Not To Be Decided By Arbitrator For Applying MSMED Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Jaiprakash Associates Limited vs MSEFC The High Court of Delhi has held that an issue whether an agreement is in the nature of works contract and the consequent issue of applicability of MSMED Act to such contracts is to be decided by the arbitrator. Arbitrator Cannot Add The Amount Of Pre-Reference Interest To The Principal Amount While Determining Pendente Lite Interest: Delhi High Court Case Title: National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd vs M/s Interstate Construction The High Court of Delhi has held that the arbitrator cannot add the amount of pre-reference...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 07 to 13 August 2023

Parina Katyal

Tags