Legality Of Arbitrator's Appointment Can't Be Challenged In Petitions For Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that objections related to the legality of an arbitrator's appointment cannot be raised in a petition seeking an extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: Apex Buildsys Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a petition under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an extension of the mandate of the arbitrator who was handling the...

Arbitration Clause Invalid If Contractor Cannot Select Arbitrator From Railway's Panel: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that an arbitration clause is invalid if it does not allow the contractor to select an arbitrator from a panel provided by the Railway. The High Court noted that there was a significant distinction between the clause and the arbitration clause previously considered by the Supreme Court in Central Organization for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV). The clause in CORE, detailed in Clause 64(3)(b) of the...

Section 34 Applications Challenging Arbitral Awards Subject To ₹120 Court Fee, Higher Fees Under Entry No. 1(10) Not Applicable: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the principal application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award, falls under Entry No. 2(c) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. This entry is the residuary provision that prescribes a court fee of Rs. 120 for original applications before the High Court, where no other specific provision in Schedule II applies. The bench clarified that Entry No. 1(10)...

State Not Part To Agreement Can't File Section 16 Application: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani has held that an arbitration agreement entered into between the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, and a private company does not involve or implicate the State Government in any legal capacity. The bench held that such an agreement is exclusively between the central government ministry and the concerned company, thereby excluding any role or involvement of...

Sec 151 CPC Application Not Maintainable When Sect 29A(4) Of Arbitration Act Applies, Incorrect Quote Of Section Not Grounds For Dismissal: HP High Court

The Himachal High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that an application under Section 151 of the CPC is not maintainable when a specific provision exists under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extending the time of arbitration proceedings. However, the bench also held that the application cannot be dismissed solely because it cited Section 151 CPC instead of Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: Kamlu (Applicant), also...

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Decision To Deny Pre-Reference, Pendente Lite Interest for Project Delay

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that it is reasonable for an arbitrator to deny pre-reference and pendente lite interest when the applicant is partially responsible for delays in completing the project. The bench held that interpreting a contract and determining claims based on that interpretation fall within the arbitral tribunal's authority. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Arbitral Tribunal Is Master of Evidence, Delhi High Court Upholds Award Against Railways

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that when an arbitrator delivers an Arbitral Award, the assessment of the quality and quantity of evidence presented to her must be respected, and any reasonable conclusion drawn by the arbitrator based on the facts should be upheld. The bench held that that the Arbitral Tribunal is the master of evidence and a findings of fact arrived at by an arbitrator is on an appreciation of the...

Court Acquires Jurisdiction Under Section 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Immediately On Default Of Pre-Arbitral Or Arbitral Procedure: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that court acquires jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 immediately on the default, of either party, in adhering to the pre-arbitral or arbitral procedure envisaged in the contract. Section 11(6) provides that if a party fails to appoint an arbitrator, or if the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the third arbitrator, or if the parties or arbitrators do not agree on the...

Discovery And Inspection Orders By Arbitral Tribunal Are Not Interim Awards If They Do Not Resolve Disputed Issues: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has held that an order by arbitral tribunal addressing applications related to the discovery and inspection of documents does not constitute an interim award if it does not resolve a matter at issue between the parties. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 where Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies AG (Petitioner) challenged what it...

Duty Of Every Arbitral Tribunal & Court To Examine What The Contract Provides : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that the courts and arbitral tribunals have the duty to examine the contract clauses in proceedings concerning arbitration.While upholding Calcutta High Court's decision to set aside the arbitrator's decision to award the amount for loss due to idle machinery and labour despite it being prohibited under the contract, the Court said : “In fact, High Court did what the Arbitrator should have done. Examine what the contract provides. This is not even a...

Allegations Of Fraud And Time-Barred Claims Must Be Addressed By Arbitral Tribunal, Not Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that issues such as allegations of fraud and claims that the applicant's claims are time-barred must be addressed by the arbitral tribunal rather than the court. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which sought the reference of a dispute to arbitration. The dispute arose out of an Apartment Buyer Agreement executed between the Dr. Rahul...

Section 34 Challenge Unwarranted If Arbitrator's Judgment Is Well-Reasoned And Based On Evidence: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if an Arbitrator's judgment is well-reasoned and backed by substantial evidence, there are no grounds to challenge it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a dispute between BLA Projects Private Limited (the claimant/respondent) and Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) (the petitioner). In the arbitration proceedings, BLA Projects claimed under...