CPC Provisions Govern Stay Of Execution Proceedings Initiated Under Section 36(1) Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra has held that held that since the Arbitration Act is silent on the aspect of filing an application before the executing court to stay the operation of execution proceedings initiated under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, the provisions of the CPC would be followed for this purpose. The High Court noted that the Arbitration Act provides in Section 35 that an arbitral award is final and binding, subject to the provisions of...

Arbitration | Referral Courts Must Not Conduct Intricate Enquiry On Whether Claims Are Time-Barred : Supreme Court Clarifies 'Arif Azim' Judgment

The Supreme Court held that while deciding a Section 11(6) petition for an appointment of an arbitrator, the referral courts must not conduct an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the applicant are time-barred and should leave that question for determination by the arbitrator. The Court said that the referral court should limit its enquiry to examining whether the Section 11(6) application has been filed within the period of limitation of three years...

Invoking Section 8(1) Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996, Formal Application Is Required, Averment In Written Statement Not Enough

The Telangana High Court has clarified the procedural requirements for invoking arbitration under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that a formal application for referring parties to arbitration must be filed before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, typically the written statement in a suit. The case arose from a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court order that had referred parties to arbitration based ...

Courts Must Refrain From Interim Orders Once Arbitral Tribunal Is Constituted Unless Urgency Demands: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is in place, ordinarily a court should refrain from dealing with the matter even for the purposes of passing interlocutory orders unless the order is demonstrably one which cannot await the application of mind by the Arbitral Tribunal. The bench held that: “. If party is able to convince the Court that by the time the application is taken up by the Arbitral Tribunal, the prejudice that may...

Disputes Predominantly Civil But Involving Elements Of Criminality Not Automatically Excluded From Arbitration: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh has held that a dispute predominantly civil but involving elements of criminality is not automatically excluded from arbitration. The bench noted that unless there is a specific allegation of the parties engaging in an agreement amounting to criminal conspiracy, there should be no blanket prohibition on referring such disputes to arbitration. Brief Facts: M/s Tata Power Solar (Petitioner) successfully won...

Arbitral Award In Violation Of Contractual Bar Is Patently Illegal: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an arbitral award in violation of a bar contained in the contract is beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction. The bench held that such an award categorically vitiated under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as by patent illegality as envisaged in Sub-section (2-A) of Section 34. Justice Bhattacharyya held that: “Since the parties are bound by the contract, which...

Disobedience Of Interim Measures Due To Insolvency Proceedings Is Not Contempt: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has held that disobedience of interim measures granted under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to insolvency proceedings does not warrant contempt charges. The bench held that if the disobedience results from circumstances beyond the contemnor's control, such as financial constraints or ongoing disputes that impact compliance, contempt charges are not justified. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a ...

Arbitral Tribunal Can Award Compensation For Breach If Contract Is Incapable Of Specific Performance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that the arbitral tribunal may exercise its power to award compensation for breach if a Contract has become incapable of specific performance. Further, the bench held that the interpretation of a contract is a matter for an arbitrator to determine. It held that even if such interpretation gives rise to an erroneous application of the law, the courts will generally not interfere unless the error...

Aggrieved Third Party Beneficiaries Of Domain Names Cannot Challenge Arbitration Award U/s 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that only parties to an arbitration agreement can challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was further held that 3rd-party beneficiaries of domain names in India, who are impacted by the arbitral award, lack the standing to challenge the award. Brief Facts: Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (“JSPL”) discovered that a different entity named Nspire Solutions Pvt. Ltd....

Invocation of Arbitration Beyond Stipulated Period In Clause Does Not Frustrate Parties' Intent To Arbitrate: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the invocation of arbitration after the period defined in the arbitration clause doesn't frustrate the intention of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration. The bench held that the outer limit stipulated in the arbitration clause for invocation of arbitration if failed by the claimant, does not constitute a waiver or a deliberate relinquishment of the claim by the claimant. Brief Facts: Incoda...

Supreme Court's Interpretation Of 'Three Months' As 90 Days In Section 34(3) Of Arbitration Act As Obiter Dicta, Not Ratio Decidendi: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta has held that the Supreme Court's observations regarding the interpretation of "three months" in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as 90 days in various cases were not the ratio decidendi but obiter dicta. The bench held that the period of limitation must be computed based on calendar months, therefore, the period of limitation in Section 34(3) would be three months excluding the date of receipt of the...

Composite Reference To Arbitration Necessary When Dispute Involves Same Subject Matter: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held allowed composite reference of two companies to arbitration noting that the two arbitration agreement refer to the self-same demised property. Moreover, it noted that both the agreements were entered into by the same proposed lessee with two co-owners of the self-same property. The bench held that: “if two different references were to be made, there would be ample scope of conflict of decision pertaining to...