Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 18th March to 24th March 2024

Supreme Court General Reference Won't Have Effect Of Incorporating Arbitration Clause In Another Contract, Specific Reference Needed : Supreme Court Case Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 246 The Supreme Court reiterated that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in another contract unless a specific reference was made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause into the main contract. Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that unless a specific reference is made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause of another contract then the parties are bound to settle their dispute through the mode of settlement agreed to in the main contract. High Courts Allahabad High Court Limitation Act | Doesn't Encompass Long Delays, Condonation Only In Exceptional Cases: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Section 37 A&C Petition Case Title: - State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 619 of 2023. The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not encompass long delays, and condonation can only be granted in exceptional cases where the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently. A&C | Allahabad High Court Set Aside Section 34 Order, District Judge Failed To Take Into Consideration When Appellant Received Signed Award Copy Case Title: Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others. Case Number: - APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 271 of 2022 The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf set aside an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by the District Judge, noting that the judge failed to give due consideration to Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. Since the limitation period for Section 34 commences upon the receipt of signed award copy, the bench held that it was incumbent on the judge to note the date on which the signed copy was received by the Appellant. Bombay High Court Provisions Of Section 12(5) R/W 7th Schedule Of The A&C Act Also Apply To Institutional Arbitrations: Bombay High Court Case Title: Era International v. Aditya Birla Global Trading India Pvt. Ltd, Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 27638 of 2023 The High Court of Bombay has held that that provisions of Section 12(5) r/w 7th Schedule of the A&C Act also apply to Institutional Arbitrations. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that rules of an arbitral institution cannot override the provisions of the A&C Act. It held that even if parties agree to institutional arbitration, it does not exclude the Court's power to decide on the termination of an arbitrator's mandate if a controversy arises regarding the grounds mentioned in Section 14(1)(a). Time-Barred Claims Must Not Be Entertained, Doing So Would Perpetuate Injustice Than Serving Justice: Bombay High Court Case Title: Mahavir Enterprise vs Chandravati Sunder Salian. Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2023. The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that claims that are clearly time-barred must not be entertained, as doing so would perpetuate injustice rather than serving justice. The High Court held that even the slightest doubt regarding the timeliness of a claim warrants its referral to arbitration, as interfering in such matters would encroach upon the tribunal's jurisdiction. Technical Difficulties Shouldn't Thwart Objectives Of Arbitral Proceeding: Bombay High Court Allows Petition For Replacement Of Arbitrator Case Title: M/s.Paresh Construction & Foundation Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.18473 OF 2023 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO.13 OF 2023 The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Bharti Dangre held although there might be an impression that with the legal termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate upon the expiration of one year from the reference entry, as per Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 there might be a technical difficulty. However, it held that such technicalities should not thwart the overarching objective of the proceedings. Where Arbitral Award In Nature Of Money Decree, Requirement Of 100% Deposit Of Award For Grand Of Stay: Bombay High Court Case Title: M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd vs M/s. Shilpi Engineering Pvt.Ltd. Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 779 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1131 OF 2018. The Bombay High Court ...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 18th March to 24th March 2024

ausaf ayyub

Tags