Arbitration Weekly Roundup: June 10 - June 16, 2024

Supreme Court High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425 The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award as per Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (“Act”). The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that as per the mandate of Section 29A (4) of the Act, the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award vests within the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but there is no impediment for the High Court who is exercising the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to extend the time limit. Delhi High Court [Arbitration Act] Scope Of Inquiry In Section 9 Petition Is Limited, Interpretation Of Contract Would Be Within Domain Of Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court Case Title: Vijay Maheshwari Vs Splendor Buildwell Private Limited And Anr Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 720 Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 42/2024 & I.As. 2446/2024, 4723/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that under a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope of inquiry is very limited to grant interim relief. The bench held that issues of fact or law are not to be determined finally at the Section 9 stage as they fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal. It held that the interpretation of the terms of the Contract/MoU and also the determination of its scope would also be within the domain of the arbitral tribunal. Arbitration Clause Valid Despite Even Number Of Arbitrators: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition Case Title: M/S Talbros Sealing Materials Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Slach Hydratecs Equipments Pvt. Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 715 Case Number: ARB.P. 1306/2022 & I.A. 6153/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the arbitration clause is not invalidated merely on the ground that the number of arbitrators, as per the arbitration clause, was an even number and therefore, was in contravention of Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 states that the parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number. [Arbitration Act] Mere Sending of Notice Under Section 21 Not Enough, Receipt of Notice Essential: Delhi High Court Case Title: Indian Spinal Injuries Centre Vs M/S Galaxy India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 714 Case Number: ARB.P. 848/2023, I.A. 15490/2023 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that merely sending notice of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not sufficient. It held that receipt of the notice is the prerequisite for the commencement of arbitration proceedings. Mere Initiation Of Arbitration Proceedings Doesn't Bar Corporate Debtor From Pursing Remedies Under IBC: Delhi High Court Allows Section 11(6) Petition Case Title: Pitambar Solvex Pvt Ltd And Anr. Vs Manju Sharma And Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 713 Case Number: ARB.P. 212/2024, I.A. 9821/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that mere initiation of the arbitration proceedings does not bar the corporate debtor from pursuing his other remedies including those under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code. [Arbitration Act] Non-Disclosure Of Section 9 Petition In Another Matter Can't Be Termed As 'Egregious Fraud': Delhi High Court Case Title: Tata Projects Ltd. Vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 711 Case Number: FAO (COMM) 93/2024 CM APPL. 29905/2024 The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that non-disclosure of the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in another matter cannot be termed as a case of egregious fraud, which would disentitle a party from pursuing its petition under Section 9. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for interim measures by the court. It empowers a party to arbitration proceedings to seek interim relief from a judicial authority before, during, or after the arbitration proceedings. Rajasthan High Court Arbitration Requires Dispute Arising From Agreement, Unrelated Disputes Ineligible for Arbitration: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: M/s Blue City Indane vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Case Number: S.B. Arbitration Application No. 18/2020 The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Rekha Borana ...

Arbitration Weekly Roundup: June 10 - June 16, 2024

Rajesh Kumar

Tags