Mere Arbitration Clause In Invoices Insufficient, Express Or Implicit Acceptance Of Terms Of Invoices Necessary: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that simply including an arbitration clause in invoices does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement. The High Court held that since the applicant neither expressly nor implicitly accepted the terms of the invoices, it could not be deemed to be bound by any arbitration agreement. The bench held: “They do not contain the signature of the petitioner or anything to indicate that the petitioner had consented to the...

Arbitration Clause In Original Lease Deed Incorporated Into Deed Of Assignment When Deeds Are Interconnected And Consistent: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment. The bench held that interrelationship was not merely superficial but indicative of a deliberate and mutual intent between the parties to incorporate certain terms from the...

The Arbitral Tribunal May Implead A Non-Signatory To The Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Harishankar, while deciding an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) has held in the affirmative whether the arbitral tribunal may implead a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in the proceedings. Following the ratio in Cox and Kings Ltd v. Sap India Pvt Ltd (Cox and Kings II), it observed that whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement is for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide and not the Section 11 Court. Facts: The appellant...

Non-Compliance With Share Purchase Agreement; Arbitrability Of Dispute Must Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal, Not By Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that argument claiming the dispute is non-arbitrable due to non-compliance with the Share Purchase Agreement cannot be addressed by the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that such aspects need to be addressed by the arbitral tribunal. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a dispute which dealt with a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) which included a provision for...

Section 11 Can't Be Entertained Without A Notice Under Section 21 of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe has held that a valid notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a mandatory requirement for invoking arbitration, and its absence renders an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Act non-maintainable. Brief Facts: The parties entered into a Franchise Agreement on 26.06.2019, which contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose, and the applicant sought a refund of...

Arbitrator Can't Assume Arbitral Seat Without Clear Agreement From Parties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that that parties in arbitration can agree to an arbitral seat at a neutral location, different from where the contract was executed, the work was carried out, or the arbitration proceedings were conducted. However, such a decision must first reflect mutual agreement and, secondly, must be documented, either explicitly in writing or recorded by the Arbitrator or the Court in an order. The High Court held that, without such...

Arbitration | Absence Of Monetary Claim In Section 21 Notice Doesn't Negate Existence Of Dispute: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that due to the broad interpretation of the term "dispute," the court cannot definitively conclude that no dispute exists between the parties, even in the absence of a monetary claim by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 21 specifies that arbitral proceedings begin when a party sends a notice to the other party requesting the...

The Benefit Of Section 14 Of The Limitation Act Can Be Invoked For Exclusion Of Time In A Proceeding Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the time spent in a writ petition on the same cause of action can be excluded from the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: Baid Power Services Private Limited (Petitioner) entered into an agreement with the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation...

Twelve-Month Period For Arbitral Award Begins From Completion Of Pleadings, Not Statement Of Defense: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when read with Section 29A(4), implies that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal terminates if the tribunal does not issue the award within twelve months of completing the pleadings under Section 23(4). The bench held that the twelve-month period is to be calculated from the completion of pleadings, not from the date of filing the Statement of Defense (SOD)....

Arbitration | Courts At Referral Stage Must Not Enter Into Contested Questions Involving Complex Facts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (Sep.9) reiterated that once there exists a valid arbitration agreement, than it would not be justifiable for the referral courts at the referral stage to venture into contested questions involving complex facts.Emphasizing upon the doctrine of competence-competence enshrined under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), the Court said that the referral courts while deciding the petition for an appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6)...

Order In Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Based On Settlement Is Enforceable As Decree : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a settlement agreement, is enforceable as a decree in accordance with Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 36 of the CPC pertains to the "Application to orders" and addresses the execution of decrees and orders. It states that the provisions governing the execution of decrees will also apply to the execution of orders....

The Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Re-interpret Contracts While Examining Patent Illegality : Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence under the guise of patent illegality, as per the proviso to Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It remarked that the Court cannot be sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's decision and cannot re-interpret the contract differently from the Tribunal without evidence of patent illegality. Brief Facts: A gas purchase and sale agreement dated...