Arbitration Weekly Roundup: June 17 - June 23, 2024

Delhi High Court Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor Case Number: ARB.P. 882/2022 The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pertains to the extensiArbitration Weekly Roundup: June 17 - June 23, 2024 Delhi High Court Court Empowered To Extend Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Even After Its Expiry: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ss Steel Fabricators and Contractors vs Narsing Decor Case Number: ARB.P. 882/2022 The Delhi High Court bench Justice Manoj Jain has held that the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pertains to the extension of the time period for arbitral tribunals to make their awards. This section gives courts the power to extend the mandate of the arbitral tribunal beyond the originally specified period. Bombay High Court Even If Case Doesn't Fall Under Section 36(3) Second Proviso, Court Can Consider Whether To Grant Unconditional Stay: Bombay High Court Case Title: CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd and anr vs M/s. SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. And ors Case Number: I.A. (L) NO.6246 OF 2024 IN COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L)NO.5565 OF 2024 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 310 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has held that even in a case which does not fall under the second proviso of the Section 36(3), by relying on the first proviso, the Court can consider whether to grant unconditional stay of the award or not. Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the enforcement of arbitral awards. It outlines the procedure for enforcing an arbitral award once the time for challenging the award under Section 34 has expired. First Proviso of Section 36: “Provided that the Court shall, while considering the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, have due regard to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”. Second Proviso of Section 36: “Provided further that where the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out that,-- (a) the arbitration agreement or contract which is the basis of the award; or (b) the making of the award, was induced or effected by fraud or corruption, it shall stay the award unconditionally pending disposal of the challenge under section 34 to the award.” Telangana High Court Court Under Section 11(6) Must Determine Existence And Validity Of Arbitration Agreement: Telangana High Court Case Title: Sri Sai Krishna Constructions vs Harvins Constructions Plimited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS)103 Case Number: ARBITRATION APPLICATION Nos.221 of 2023 and 32 of 2024 The Telangana High Court bench of ChiefJustice Alok Aradhe has dismissed an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator noting that the party failed to establish prima facie evidence of the existence of valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that the court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11(6) must conclusively determine the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement as the same goes to the root of the matter. Section 11(6) empowers a party to apply to the Chief Justice or a designated authority if there is a failure in the agreed procedure for appointing arbitrators. Court Must Assign Reasons When Releasing Amount Under Section 19 of MSME Act: Telangana High Court Case Title: National Small Industries Corporation vs Brahma Teja Paper Products Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS)104 Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1543 of 2024 The Telangana High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti has held that the court while dealing with a prayer under Section 19 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 to release the amount has to assign reasons for releasing such percentage of the amount. Section 19 of the MSME Act provides that the court may permit the release of a portion of the deposited amount to the supplier pending the decision on the application to set aside the decree, award, or order, contingent upon the circumstances and conditions it deems fit to impose. Gauhati High Court Arbitral Tribunal With Serving/Retired Railway Officers Violates Section 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Gauhati...

Arbitration Weekly Roundup: June 17 - June 23, 2024

Rajesh Kumar

Tags