Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 15th January To 21st January 2024

Supreme Court Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Validity Of Section 3G Of National Highways Act Case Title: B.D. Vivek v. Union of India, Writ Petition Civil No. 1364 of 2023 The Supreme Court Bench of Justices B.V. Nagrathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has issued notice on a writ petition challenging the Constitutional Validity of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. The writ petition questions the legality of Section 3G(5) of the Act. This section mandates arbitration to resolve disputes over the compensation amount payable to landowners when their land is acquired. The arbitration is to be conducted by an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. The petitioner argues that Section 3G(5) violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The contention is that imposing mandatory arbitration, with an arbitrator selected solely by the Central Government, unfairly biases the process against the landowners. High Courts Delhi High Court A Party Cannot Insist On Fulfilment Of Pre-Arbitral Steps After Terminating The Contract: Delhi High Court Case Title: Mr. Gajendra Mishra v. Pokhrama Foundation, ARB.P. 969/2023 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 74 The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot insist on fulfilment of pre-arbitration conciliation once it has itself terminated the agreement. It held that pre-arbitration conciliation provided in the agreement falls with the termination of the agreement. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that once a party has itself proceeded to terminate the agreement without approaching the Project Manager for conciliation, it cannot object to the maintainability of the petition seeking appointment of the arbitrator on the ground of non-fulfilment of pre-arbitral steps. The Court held that once the agreement has been terminated, no resolution or settlement or conciliation through Project Manager would be possible as designated authority would cease to exist upon the termination of the agreement. Limitation Period For Appointment Of A Substitute Arbitrator Is 3 Years From The Date When The Right To Apply For Fresh Appointment Accrues: Delhi High Court Case Title: Jatinder Kaur & Ors v. Late Jagjit Singh & Ors, ARB.P. 1167 of 2022 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 72 The High Court of Delhi has held that the limitation period for the appointment of the substitute arbitrator is 3 years from the date when the right to apply for such appointment accrues. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that since the act does not provide for any explicit period for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator, the limitation shall be governed by the residual provision found in Article 137 of the Limitation Act which provides a period of 3 years as the limitation period from the date when the right to apply accrues. Issues Related To Bias Of An Arbitrator And Conduct Of Arbitral Proceedings Cannot Be Determined Under Section 29A Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates Case Title: Vivek Aggarwal v. Hemant Aggarwal, OMP(MISC)(COMM) 29 of 2023 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 71 The High Court of Delhi has held that an issue related to the bias of an arbitrator in conducting the arbitral proceedings cannot be determined by a Court while dealing with the application under Section 29A of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh reiterated that the scope of Court's power under Section 29A is limited to the examination of whether the extension should be granted or not. It held that the grievance of a party with the conduct of arbitral proceedings or any other substantive challenge cannot be decided by the Court under Section 29A. Arbitral Award Can't Be Challenged On Ground Of Bias Of Arbitrator If No Challenge Was Made During Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court Case Title: Allied-Dynamic JV v. Ircon International Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 62 The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitral award cannot be challenged on the ground of bias of arbitrator if no challenge to bias was made during the pendency of arbitral proceedings. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that a party that has fully participated in the arbitral proceedings without raising any challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal on ground of bias, cannot challenge the award directly under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Court held that in an arbitration that has commenced before the 2015 amendment, such a conduct by a party would constitute a waiver under Section 4 of the A&C Act. Pendente Lite And Future Interest Can't Be Included In The 'Aggregate Value Of Claim And Counterclaims' U/S 12 Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Simentech India Pvt Ltd v. BHEL, OMP(COMM) 348 of 2022 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 63 The High Court of Delhi has held that to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 15th January To 21st January 2024

ausaf ayyub

Tags