Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 26th May 2024 To 2nd June 2024

Delhi High Court [Arbitration Act] Awarding Interest Rate Is Discretion Of Arbitrator, Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Space 4 Business Solution Pvt Ltd Vs The Divisional Commissioner Principal Secretary And Anr. Case Number: ARB.P. 360/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right. The bench held that: “whether to grant or refuse the interest on the principle amount, is the absolute discretion of the learned Arbitrator.” Conclusions Drawn By Arbitrator In Disregard Of Evidence On Record Makes Award Liable To Be Set Aside As Being Perverse And Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Divyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs M/S M2k Entertainment Pvt Ltd Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 162/2020 & I.A. 14331/2012, I.A. 10655/2022 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal. Court Has Authority To Appoint Sole Arbitrator Even Though Arbitration Agreement Specified Three-Member Tribunal: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition Case Title: M/S Twenty-Four Secure Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Competent Automobiles Company Limited Case Number: ARB.P. 24/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a contention that the court lacked the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator, even though the arbitration agreement specified a three-member tribunal. The bench held that because the parties have not been able to arrive at the name of an arbitrator, the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not premature and was maintainable under the law. Period Of Bonafide Negotiations May Be Excluded For Computing Period Of Limitation For Reference: Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Blooming Orchid Vs Fp Life Education Foundation Case Number: ARB. P. 630/2024 & I.A. 10843/202 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held the period during which the parties were bona fide negotiating towards an amicable settlement may be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for reference to Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that in such cases, the entire negotiation history between the parties must be specifically pleaded and placed on record. Where Arbitration Seat Is Fixed, Only Such Court Shall Have Exclusive Jurisdiction To Entertain Application Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Abhimanyu Through Special Power Of Attorney Holder Vs Parmesh Construction Co. Ltd Case Number: ARB.P. 322/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that where the arbitration seat is fixed, only such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the cause of action arose at Noida, the agreement was executed at Noida, and the suit property is also situated at Noida. Therefore, the courts in Noida have jurisdiction over the appointment of an arbitrator. Court Fully Empowered To Extend Mandate Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Under Section 29A(4): Delhi High Court Case Title: M/S Power Mech Projects Ltd Vs M/S Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: O.M.P. (MISC.) 6/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Termination Of Arbitrator's Mandate Doesn't Equate To Termination Of Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court Case Title: Extramarks Education India Pvt. Ltd Vs Saraswati Shishu Mandir Case Number: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 13/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that that the termination of an arbitrator's mandate does not equate to the termination of the arbitral proceedings. Instead, it allows for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator to ensure the continuation of the proceedings. Notice Under Section 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Pre-Requisite For Initiation Of Proceedings Under Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act: Delhi High Court Case Title: Purvanchal Hathkargha Sahakari Sangh Ltd Vs All India Handloom Fabrics Society And Anr. Case Number: ARB.P. 75/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that except power conferred to the Central Registrar under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 for appointment of an Arbitrator, the other provisions of...

Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 26th May 2024 To 2nd June 2024

Rajesh Kumar

Tags