Arbitral Tribunal Is Final Decision-Maker; Court Interference Only For Perverse Or Implausible Awards: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court divison bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that Arbitral Tribunal serves as the ultimate decision-maker on all matters. The bench held that interference by the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only warranted if the Tribunal's decision is deemed perverse or implausible. Brief Facts: Delhi Skills Mission Society (Appellant) challenged a judgment rendered by the Commercial Court. The...

Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that allegations of a party's signature on an arbitration agreement being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation are matters that can be decided by the arbitrator and can't be resolved by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench further observed that the arbitral tribunal, similar to a civil court, has the authority to appoint experts when complex issues, such as...

Arbitrator's Discussion On Claims And Costs Exceeds Jurisdiction If Not As Per Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that if an arbitrator concludes that she was not appointed according to the arbitration clause, then any discussion on the merits of the claims and the award of costs against the Respondents exceeds the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition which challenged an arbitral award which addressed disputes arising from a partnership deed. Ram Chander Aggarwal (Petitioner), who was the...

Commercial Courts Empowered To Hear Commercial Original Petition Arising From Section 37 Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice M.G. Priyadarsini has held that commercial courts are competent courts to hear the Commercial Original Petition arising from Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in terms of specified value, territorial jurisdiction and the nature of the dispute i.e., commercial dispute. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a Civil Revision Petition which arose from an order passed by Special...

Administrative Delays Insufficient To Justify 950-Day Delay In Section 34 Appeal Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has held that the administrative reason alone cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 950 days in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that delays attributable to administrative factors, such as changes in project management or internal procedural adjustments, do not constitute valid grounds for extending the limitation period for filing an appeal. Brief Facts: ...

Administrative Lethargy Of Government Machinery Not Valid Ground For Delay Condonation In Arbitration Appeals: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that nature of administrative lethargy of the Government machinery is not a satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay in submitting an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: Union of India filed an application before the High Court for condonation of delay in submitting an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appeal was...

Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Justified If Applicant's Rights Are Not Protected From Third Parties: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous. Brief Facts: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited (Petitioner) entered into a development agreement with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to develop the...

Personal Hearings Not Always Necessary For Arbitrator Appointment If Pleadings Are Complete: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that while personal hearings for all parties can be beneficial in proceedings to enforce the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6), it is not always necessary. The bench held that when an arbitration agreement is clearly established in the pleadings and the dispute is not evidently stale or time-barred, it is unnecessary to delay the consideration of an application under Section 11. It noted that if the...

No Prior Request Under Section 21 Needed For Section 11 Arbitration Applications: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21. The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is distinct from a situation under Section 11(5), where prior notice is necessary only for...

Correspondence Stating Non-Arbitrability Of Dispute Due To Negotiable Instruments Act Proceedings Implies Recognition Of Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that correspondence from a party stating that ongoing proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 barred initiation of arbitration implicitly acknowledged the existence of the arbitration clause. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where Dhanlaxmi Sales Corporation (Petitioner) sought the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve...

Applicants Seeking Pandemic Relaxation For Limitation Under Section 34 Petition Cannot Simultaneously Claim IBC Moratorium Protection: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC. The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic initially prevented it from filing the application on time. The Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for...

No Denial Of Opportunity When Arbitrator Allowed Claimants To Submit Additional Affidavit Revealed In Respondent's Response-Affidavit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that there is no denial of opportunity when the arbitrator permitted the claimants to submit an additional affidavit by way of examination-in-chief which came to light for the first time in the response-affidavit filed by the Respondent. Brief Facts: DD Auto Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) was one of the co-claimants in an ongoing arbitration proceeding. The Respondents in the arbitration were Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Forging...