Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 3nd February to 11th February 2024

Delhi High Court Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Permits Petitioner To Avail Remedy Under S. 37 Of Arbitration Act Case Title: Shri Balaji Enterprises & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 134 The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the aggrieved party should avail the alternate remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before approaching the court under Article 226 unless there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. Further, the bench held that the remedy available to a party under Article 226 is not absolute and is at the discretion of the High Court. 6. It is well settled that High Courts do not entertain writs in cases where an equally efficacious alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party and the aggrieved person has approached the High Court without availing of the said remedy. Claims Related To Company Are Arbitrable Even Though It Is Non-Signatory To Arbitration Agreement, Delhi High Court Reinforces GOC Doctrine Case Title: M/s Opuskart Enterprises & Ors vs Kaushal Kishore Tyagi The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that the disagreements related to the partners' business activities, whether conducted through the firm or the company, fall within the scope of arbitrable matters. The bench rejected the argument that the firm or the company cannot be brought forth in the arbitration proceedings since neither the firm nor the company are signatories to the arbitration agreement. It referred to the Supreme Court decision in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. and held that common business ventures of the partners, whether conducted through the firm or the Company, fell within the purview of the arbitration clause. Striking Off Co's Name By ROC Post-Commencement Of Arbitration Not A Ground To Set Aside Award, Delhi H.C. Dismisses S. 34 Application Case Title: M/s Exotic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Medors Biotech Pvt. Ltd. The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju dismissed a Section 34 application filed by Exotic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. against M/s Medors Biotech Pvt. Ltd. The bench held that an arbitral award cannot be set aside merely because the respondent company's name was struck off from the Register of Companies post-commencement of arbitral proceedings. It upheld the principle that the cancellation of a company's incorporation doesn't affect the realization of amounts due to the company or the discharge of its obligations. Need For Broad Panel To Choose From To Ensure Arbitrator's Independence As Per Clause 64 of GCC: Delhi High Court Case Title: The Braithwaite Burn and Jessop Construction Co Ltd vs Northern Railway The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta allowed an application made under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, regarding the termination of an arbitrator's mandate under his former employment with the respondent, Northern Railway. The bench held that a broad-based panel should have been provided to the complainant and 4 was very less a number, coupled with the fact that each arbitrator in the panel was a former employee of Northern Railway. The bench concluded that this was against the principles enshrined in Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and the decisions given by the Supreme Court. The bench also acknowledged the unjustified exclusion of four claims raised by the Petitioner and held it invalid as per the GCC. Section 11 Petition Can Be Filed Only After Failure Of Parties To Appoint Arbitrator Within 30 Days Of Notice, Limitation Act Applies: Delhi High Court Case Title: Information TV Private Limited vs Jitendra Dahyabhai Patel The Delhi High Court bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh, held that a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can only be filed after a notice of arbitration has been issued and there has been a failure to make the appointment of an arbitrator within 30 days. The bench held that the limitation period arises upon the failure to make the appointment of the arbitrator within 30 days from the issuance of the notice invoking arbitration. Limitation Period U/s 34(3) Absolute; Condonation Of Delay Impermissible Unless Party Shows Diligence And Bona Fide Reasons: Delhi High Court Case Title: National Research Development Corporation & Anr vs Chromous Biotech Pvt Ltd. The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Pratibha M Singh held that the time limit for limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is absolute in nature and it is impermissible to condone the delay in challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 unless the party demonstrates diligence and bona fide reasons beyond its control for the delay. The High...

Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 3nd February to 11th February 2024

Rajesh Kumar

Tags