Allahabad High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Facilitation Council Award For Lack Of Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 19 MSME Act

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the award passed by the Zonal Micro and Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Meerut Zone, Meerut under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as the petitioners, Tamil Nadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited and others, had refused to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 19 of the MSME Act.The Court held that even though principles of natural justice have been...

Interest For Prereference Period And Pendente Lite Interest Can't Be Claimed Under Arbitration Act, 1940: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that interest for the prereference period as well as the pendente lite interest cannot be claimed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The bench held that when pre-suit interest, pendente lite interest and future interest has to be awarded on the principal sum adjudged, the interest can be awarded only on the principal sum and it does not provide for payment of interest on interest. Therefore, it held that there is no...

[Arbitration Act] General Explanation Of Intra-departmental Analysis And Discussions Doesn't Constitute Credible Explanation For Delay In Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a general explanation of intra-departmental analysis and discussions doesn't constitute as valid and credible explanation for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The Appellant approached the Delhi High Court and filed an application seeking condonation of a 118-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of...

Delhi High Court Imposes Costs Of Rs. 50,000 For Unnecessarily Challenging And Questioning Of Arbitrator's Mandate

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- on a party for unnecessarily challenging and questioning the mandate of the arbitrator. The bench held that the party's intent was to create a stale mate. It held that repeated interventions of the court in arbitral proceedings are to be avoided and parties cannot force the arbitrators to recuse/withdraw.Brief Facts:This petition, filed on behalf of Ms. Sarika Chaturvedi, seeks the substitution of an arbitrator...

[Arbitration Act] Party Can't Challenge Procedural Order Passed By Arbitrator Under Section 9: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has held that a party is not permitted to challenge a procedural order passed by an arbitrator under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that: “…it is observed that by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1996 the Petitioner is merely attempting to avoid the appellate provision under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 which clearly stipulates as to which orders are appealable.” Brief...

Jharkhand High Court Dismisses JUVNL's Appeal, Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment In Dispute With M/s Rites

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL) challenging the writ court's order to appoint a sole arbitrator in its dispute with M/s Rites.The Court emphasized that it is the High Court's duty to reject petitions or defenses based on purely technical grounds aimed at gaining an unfair advantage.The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar, noted, “…except for a broad proposition that...

Once Arbitration Agreement Is Confirmed, Court Should Refrain From Delving Into Other Issues: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Bansal held that the role of the court is limited to verifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The bench held that once the court confirms that the arbitration agreement exists, it should refrain from delving into other issues, which are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.Brief Facts:The Petitioner was awarded a contract for the rehabilitation and upgradation of a specific road section in Tripura by the Respondent under the terms of...

[Arbitration Act] Arbitrator Obligated U/S 31(5) To Deliver Signed Copies Of Award To Parties, Irrespective Of No Specific Requests: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the arbitrator is obligated to deliver signed copies of arbitral award to each party to the arbitration. It has been held that irrespective of the fact that no specific request has been made by the parties for certified copy of the award, the arbitrator must deliver the award in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.“Section 31(5) of the Act unequivocally imposes an obligation upon the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy of...

Determination Of Delay On Part Of Contractor Is Not 'Excepted Matter', Only Quantum Of Damages Is Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the question of determination of whether indeed, there was a delay on the part of the Contractor is not an excepted matter and it is only the quantum of damages which is non-arbitrable. The bench held that: “….the question of determination of delay, is not an excepted matter and has to be necessarily arbitrated and is an arbitrable dispute.” Brief Facts: The Petitioner contended that the contract for ...

Where No Seat Is Specified In Arbitration Agreement, Jurisdiction Of Court Shall Be Determined In Accordance With Section 16 To 20 Of CPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that where no seat of arbitration is specified in the arbitration agreement, the jurisdiction of the court shall be determined in accordance with Section 16 to Section 20 of C.P.C. The bench held that: “….no confusion and law is explicit that for the purpose of Arbitration, even if no part of cause of action has arisen in a place, then too, the parties can agree on a seat of jurisdiction, which would then become the...

[Arbitration Act] Awarding Interest Rate Is Discretion Of Arbitrator, Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that awarding interest rate is the discretion of the arbitrator and the same cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right. The bench held that: “whether to grant or refuse the interest on the principle amount, is the absolute discretion of the learned Arbitrator.” Brief Facts: The Petitioner was awarded a tender by the Respondent and the work was duly executed. The work completed amounted to Rs....

Conclusions Drawn By Arbitrator In Disregard Of Evidence On Record Makes Award Liable To Be Set Aside As Being Perverse And Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that where an arbitrator has rendered no clear findings on a contentious issue and the conclusions drawn by an arbitrator are in disregard of the evidence on record, the award is liable to be set aside, as being perverse and patently illegal. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to disputes that arose from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). According to the MoU, the Petitioner was to construct a mall named "R-3 Mall" in...