Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 22nd April to 28th April 2024

Allahabad High Court Court Under Section 19 Of MSMED Act, 2006 Empowered To Allow Predeposit In Installments: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S Docket Care Systems vs M/S Hariwill Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 266 The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that expression “in the manner directed by such court” in Section 19 of the Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 gives the discretion to the court to allow the predeposit to be made, if felt necessary, in installments also. Bombay High Court Arbitrator's Mandate Would Not Be Terminated When The Delays In Arbitral Proceedings Are Not Attributable To It: Bombay High Court Case Title: Glencore India Pvt Ltd v. Amma Lines Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 42 of 2024 The High Court of Bombay has held that an arbitrator's mandate would not terminate when the proceedings are not completed within timelines agreed by the parties, if the delays in the conduct of the proceedings are attributable to the party seeking termination of the mandate. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that generally, in an arbitration not governed by Section 29A, the arbitrator's mandate expires upon its failure to conclude the proceedings within the time period agreed by the parties, however, it would not hold true when the tribunal acted expeditiously and the delays in proceedings were on account of fault of the parties themselves. Calcutta High Court A Policy Circular Requiring Further Consent For Arbitration Cannot Be Construed As An Arbitration Clause: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt Ltd v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd, RVWO No. 38 of 2023 The High Court of Calcutta has held that a policy circular issued by a parent company contemplating arbitration would not be an arbitration agreement if it requires fresh consent of the contractor to refer the dispute to arbitration. The bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that when for existing contracts, the circular required consent of the contractor for reference to arbitration, it cannot be construed to be an arbitration agreement as it would require a fresh arbitration agreement to be executed between the parties prior to reference of dispute to arbitration. Delhi High Court Debt Acknowledged In Letters, Delhi High Court Grants Benefit Of Section 18 To Hold Invocation Of Arbitration Within Limitation Case Title: Paisalo Digital Limited v. Sat Priya Mehmia Memorial Educational Trust Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 475 The High Court of Delhi has held that assurance given by a party to repay the debts in letter issued to the other party would amount to an acknowledgement of the debt within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The bench of Justic Prathiba M. Singh held that such an acknowledgement would give rise to a fresh cause of action and the period of limitation would run afresh from the date of such acknowledgement as provided under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Court Has To Necessarily Extend Mandate Of The Arbitrator If No Ground For Its Substitution Is Made Out, No Need For A Separate Section 29A Application: Delhi High Court Case Title: Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 482 The High Court of Delhi has held that a Court exercising powers under Sections 14 & 15 of the A&C Act can extend the mandate of the arbitrator if no ground for its substitution is made out in the application. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that once the Court is satisfied that there is no ground for substitution of the arbitrator, the Court can extend the mandate even without an application under Section 29A(4) of the Act. Arbitrator Failed To Deal With Material Contentions, Arbitral Award Would Not Satisfy The Requirement Of A Reasoned Award: Delhi High Court Case Title: Samrata Constructions Company v. Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 481 The High Court of Delhi has held that when the arbitral tribunal fails to deal with submissions of a party on a contentious issue, the resultant award would not fulfil the requirements of a reasoned award as required under Section 31 of the A&C Act. It held that the tribunal cannot simply accept unquantified claims without assigning reasons and without dealing with the objections to those claims. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that once it is found that the agreement has been validly terminated in accordance with the terms of the Contract, it follows that the earnest money is not liable to be refunded. Mandate Of The Arbitrator Cannot Be Terminated When The Delay Was Not Attributable To Arbitrator: Delhi High Court Case Title: Religare Finvest Limited v. Widescreen Holdings Pvt Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 479 ...

Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 22nd April to 28th April 2024

ausaf ayyub

Tags