Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 25th March to 31st March 2024

Supreme Court Enforcement Of Foreign Award Must Be Refused Only Rarely, International Standards To Be Applied To Determine Bias : Supreme Court Case Title: AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. v. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC )267 In a crucial judgment, while allowing the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the Supreme Court (on March 04), held that to determine the factor of arbitral bias, Court must endeavour to follow international standards than domestic ones. It is only in exceptional circumstances that enforcement of a foreign should be refused on the ground of bias the Court said. "Embracing international standards in arbitration would foster trust, certainty, and effectiveness in the resolution of disputes on a global scale. The above discussion would persuade us to say that in India, we must adopt an internationally recognized narrow standard of public policy, when dealing with the aspect of bias" High Courts Allahabad High Court Questions Of Agreement Implications And Legal Provisions Need To Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 A&C Act: Allahabad High Court Case Title: The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory. Case Number: Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No. 16 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited to ascertain an error apparent on the face of the record. Bombay High Court Patent Illegality | For Claim For Damages There Must Be Proof Of Actual Loss: Bombay High Court Stays Arbitral Award The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R.I. Chagla stayed an arbitral award noting that the Arbitrator contravened the settled law that for a claim for damages, there must be proof of actual loss which is sine qua non for such claim. It held that the Arbitrator failed to consider the proof of loss while awarding damages to the Claimant. Calcutta High Court Arbitration Act | When Parties Engage In Constant Communication, Unjust To Dismiss Claim Solely On Grounds Of Being Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Tree House Education And Accessories Ltd. Versus Holy Trust School Case Number: AP/24/2024 The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that it would be an unnatural construction of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where a party with a bona fide and a genuine claim is left in the lurch on the defence of the claim being barred by limitation. It held that when parties engage in constant communication for the settlement of claims, it would be unjust to dismiss a claim solely on the grounds of being time-barred. Delhi High Court Panel Consisting Of 23 Names Cannot Be Considered Broad-Based If It Lacks Arbitrators From Different Backgrounds: Delhi High Court Case Title: Techno Compact Builders v. Railtel Corporation of India Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 360 The High Cout of Delhi has held that a panel consisting of 23 names cannot be considered broad-based if lacks arbitrators from different backgrounds. The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that a panel must not only be broad in terms of numbers but should also reflect diversity by having arbitrators from diverse backgrounds. Membership Of An Arbitral Institution Cannot Be Insisted Upon As A Pre-Requisite For Invoking Arbitration: Delhi High Court Case Title: Rani Construction v. Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 361 The High Court of Delhi has held the membership of an arbitral institution cannot be insisted upon as a pre-requisite for invoking arbitration. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that when parties agree to resolve their dispute through an arbitral institution, such an agreement cannot be construed to mean that they have agreed to take its membership. The Court held that insistence by an arbitral institution for such membership impinges on the validity of the appointment procedure and amounts to failure to perform the function entrusted to such institution. It held that in such a situation the appointment would be made by the Court under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act. Mere Delay By Employer Would Not Entitle The Contractor To Damages Unless The Loss Is Pleaded And Proved: Delhi High Court Case Title: Dharamvir & Company v. DDA Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 362 The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the delay in the execution of the work is attributable to the employer, the same would not entitle the contractor to...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 25th March to 31st March 2024

ausaf ayyub

Tags