Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 15th April to 21st April 2024

High Courts Bombay High Court Can A Section 29A Application Be Filed In The Commercial Court Or Only In The High Court? Single Bench Of Bombay High Court Refers The Issue To Larger Bench The High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) has referred the issue of maintainability of a Section 29A application seeking extension of the arbitration before the Commercial Court to a larger bench in view of conflicting views by two co-ordinate benches of the High Court. The Bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande observed that the since Section 29A of the A&C Act not just involves extension of the mandate of the arbitrator, but also questions relating to the substitution, termination and reduction of the fees of the arbitrator, therefore, the power under Section 29A can only lie with the High Court in view of the appointing power given to it under Section 11 of the Act. However, the Court remarked that since conflicting decisions are taken by the two co-ordinate benches, Judicial Propriety demands that the issue must be referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Appointment Of Arbitrators From A Narrow Panel Of 4 Arbitrators Is Violative Of Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: N.P. Enterprises v. General Manager, Western Railway – Commercial Arbitration Application No. 30940 of 2023 The High Court of Bombay has held that appointment of arbitrator from a narrow panel of 4 arbitrators is violative of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. It held that such practice of preparing narrow panels restricts free choice and give rise to suspicion that favourites are chosen. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that independence and impartiality of arbitrators is a hallmark of arbitration and the rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice, which is applicable with equal force in all quasi-judicial proceedings. Calcutta High Court Ease Of Doing Business In India Is A Matter Of 'Public Policy', Fruits Of Arbitral Award Must Be Protected To Promote Business: Calcutta High Court Case Title: UpHealth Holdings Inc v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd, AP-COM/490/2024 The High Court of Calcutta has held that ease of doing business in india with indian entities is also a matter of 'Public Policy'. These observations were made by the High Court while hearing an application under Section 9 of the A&C Act at post award stage in arbitration with seat in United States (US). The Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the fruits of the award must be made real and realizable so that the award is not rendered illusory or meaningless. It held that Courts must make serious attempts to protect awarded amount so that the awards are enforced and do not become mere paper awards. Power Under Section 9 Of A&C Are Wider Than Power Of Court Under Order 38 Rule 5 Of CPC: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Uphealth Holdings Inc v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd, AP-COM/490/2024 The High Court of Calcutta has held that power of a Court exercising powers under Section 9 of the A&C Act are wider than the powers of a Court under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. It held that unlike under CPC, the dissipation of assets is not a mandatory requirement for interim relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur a petitioner under Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot be burdened with the rigours of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. Delhi High Court An Arbitration Award With Contradictory Findings Is Liable To Be Set Aside Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration award, in which the tribunal rendered findings contrary to its own observations, falls within the rubric 'Public Policy' under Section 34 of the Act. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh also held that in a situation wherein the arbitral tribunal has given conflicting awards on an identical issue involving the same parties and with same contractual conditions, the Court would have to set aside the award in such an anomalous situation. Jurisdiction Of MSEF Council Wrongly Invoked, Time Spent Therein Excluded From Limitation: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/s Advance Stimul v. GAIL India, ARB.P. 13 of 2014 The High Court of Delhi has held that when the jurisdiction of the MSEF Council is wrongly invoked due to uncertainty in law, the time spent before the Council would not be counted while calculating limitation. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, which exempts the bond fide time spent before the wrong forum, would be given in such a situation. An Award Issued By Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Can Be Contested For Invalidity Of Appointment, Even By The Appointing Party: Delhi High Court Case Title: Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd v....

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 15th April to 21st April 2024

ausaf ayyub

Tags