Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 8th April To 14th April 2024

Allahabad High Court Whether Claims Prior To Work Order Are Covered By The Arbitration Clause Or Not Is To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd, Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023 The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court at pre-arbitration stage under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar also reiterated that after the judgment in Perkins an interested party cannot act as or appoint a sole arbitrator. Arbitration Act | Section 6 Commercial Courts Act Is Enabling Provision, Doesn't Override Arbitration Agreement: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Appeal Case Title: North Eastern Railway vs Calstar Steel Ltd. The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction. It held that even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration agreement between the parties specifying a different jurisdiction based on their territorial situs. Calcutta High Court Calcutta High Court Dismisses Petition Opposing Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award Based On Constructive Res-Judicata Case Title: Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v. Hindusthan Copper Limited. IA. No. GA. 5 of 2021 in EOS. 11 of 2003 The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application by Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL) under Sections 48/49 of the A&C Act seeking to refuse enforcement of the foreign award in favour of the Centrotrade Minerals. The bench of Justice Sugato Majmudar held that once the enforceability of an award is affirmed by the Supreme Court, it cannot be opposed on a new ground which could have been taken in earlier proceedings in relation to the enforceability. It held that such an application would be barred by constructive res-judicata. Delhi High Court Limitation Period For Filing An Application For Substitution Of An Arbitrator Is 3 Years: Delhi High Court Case Title: North East Centre of Technology Application & Reach v. Divine Bamboo Mat Manufacturing, OMP (T) 1 of 2024 The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 14 of the A&C Act seeking substitution of the arbitrator is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. The Court also held that an arbitrator would be deemed to have abandoned the arbitration if no proceedings take place for a substantial period of time. Decision Of Arbitral Tribunal To Not Implead A Party To Arbitration Is Not An 'Interim Award': Delhi High Court Case Title: NHAI v. M/s IRB Ahmedabad Vadodra Super Express Tollways, OMP(COMM) 455 of 2022 The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that a decision of the arbitral tribunal to refuse to implead a party to the arbitral proceedings does not constitute an 'Interim Award' which can be directly challenged under Section 34 of the Act pending arbitral proceedings. Registration Of Shares In Favor Of The Pledgee As The "Beneficial Owner" Does Not Amount To A Sale Of Shares: Delhi High Court Case Title: STCI Finance Ltd v. Sukhmani Technologies Pvt Ltd, OMP (COMM) 340 of 2017 The High Court of Delhi has held that mere registration of shares in favor of the pledgee as the "beneficial owner" does not amount to a sale of shares, and the pledgee is not required to account for any sale proceeds until the shares are actually sold to a third party. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the pledgee's right of redemption of shares remains alive until such actual sale takes place. It set aside an arbitration award wherein the arbitrator held that once the pledgee becomes the beneficial owner of the pledged shares, it becomes entitled to the credit of the value of the pledged shares. Suo Moto Extension Of Limitation By Supreme Court| The Balance Days Of Limitation Left On 15.03.2020 Would Become Available W.E.F. 01.03.2022: Delhi High Court Case Title: G4S Secure Solutions v. Matrix Cellular (International) Services Ltd, ARB.P. 427 of 2024 The High Court of Delhi has held that the balance days of limitation which were available to a party on 15.03.2020 would become available with effect from 01.03.2022, which is the day on which the benefit of the Suo Moto Extension by the Supreme Court expired. The bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act would not be time barred...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 8th April To 14th April 2024

ausaf ayyub

Tags