Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 25th December to 31st December

Bombay High Court Debt Owed To Financial Institutions Under SARFAESI Is Arbitrable, Not Debt Under RDDB Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd v. Naushad Khan, Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 8654 of 2022 The High Court of Bombay has held that a debt owed to a financial institution covered only under the SARFAESI Act is arbitrable, however, a debt owed to a financial institution to which the provisions of RDDB Act also applies is non-arbitrable. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale while distinguishing both the acts held that the proceedings under RDDB Act contains exhaustive provisions for the determination as well as the recovery of the determined debt, however, SARFAESI Act contains provisions only for the enforcement of the debt and no provision for the determination/crystallization of the debt. The Court held that since the RDDB Act contains an exhaustive provision, the debts covered under the ambit of the Act are non-arbitrable. Dispute Can't Be Referred To Arbitration By One Partner Of The Firm In Absence Of The Others: Bombay High Court Case Title: Shailesh Ranka and Ors v. Windsor Machines Limited, Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 38198 of 2022 The High Court of Bombay has held that a dispute related to the business of the firm cannot be referred to arbitration by a partner in absence of other partners. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that the implied authority granted to a partner does not extend to referring the dispute to arbitration in view of the bar under Section 19(2)(a) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The Court also held that an arbitration notice issued by one of the partners without the consent of the remaining partners is invalid which renders the petition for the appointment of the arbitrator also invalid. Delhi High Court Domain Name Infringement, S.34 Restrains Judicial Interference In Issues Of 'Subjective Satisfaction'; Delhi High Court Case Details: QUANTUM UNIVERSITY v. INTERNATIONAL QUANTUM UNIVERSITY FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INC O.M.P (COMM) 260/2021 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1343 The Delhi High Court on December 13 held that the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 strictly restrained the Court from interfering in issues of interpretation of contractual conventions and those matters where the arbitrator is required to be “subjectively satisfied” on questions of facts. The single-judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar in a petition against an arbitral award also discussed the application of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions Ltd. in cases relating to domain name infringement A Party Cannot Be Compelled To Appoint An Arbitrator From A Narrow Panel Consisting Of 3 Persons: Delhi High Court Reiterates CASE TITLE: SMAAASH LEISURE LTD V. AMBIENCE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, OMP(COMM) 180/2022 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1347 The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel of arbitrators consisting of merely 3 persons is not broad-based, therefore, a party cannot be compelled to appoint the arbitrator from such a narrow panel. The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh also reiterated that mere participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be constituted as a waiver to application of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, therefore, a party cannot be precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal merely on ground of participation in the arbitral proceedings, if the objection goes to the root of the matter and renders the arbitrator ineligible. Statement Made Before The Arbitrator Withdrawing Objection To Unilateral Appointment Would Not Suffice 'Express Agreement' Required Under Section 12(5) Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court CASE TITLE: SMAAASH LEISURE LTD V. AMBIENCE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, OMP(COMM) 180/2022 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1347 The High Court of Delhi has held that a statement made by a party's counsel before the Arbitrator withdrawing objection to unilateral appointment would not suffice 'express agreement' required under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh reiterated that ineligibility of the arbitrator goes to the root of the matter and any award passed by an ineligible arbitrator is non-est as the proceedings before such an arbitrator are void ab initio. Arbitration Act | 2G Judgment A 'Change In Law', Court Can't Set Aside Majority Award And Uphold Minority's: Delhi High Court Case Title: Indus Towers Limited v. Sistema Shyam Teleserivices Limited, O.M.P.(COMM) 209/2019 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1354 While dismissing a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration Act, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the 2G judgment, whereby the Supreme Court quashed the First-Come-First-Serve (“FCFS”)...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 25th December to 31st December

ausaf ayyub

Tags