Notice Under Section 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Pre-Requisite For Initiation Of Proceedings Under Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that except power conferred to the Central Registrar under Section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 for appointment of an Arbitrator, the other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall remain in operation. It held that the notice as required under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be a pre-requisite even for initiation of proceedings under Section 84 of the Multi...

S.16(2) Arbitration Act | Allahabad High Court Upholds Termination Of Arbitral Proceedings Against Decathlon For Premises In Lucknow

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Sole Arbitrator on grounds that there was no arbitration agreement between the petitioners, private persons who claimed to be owners of part premises in question, and M/s Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd.Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction and deal with issues...

Arbitration Act | Once Party Aware Of Contents Of Award, Can't Claim Extension Of Limitation By Invoking S.31(5): Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of signed copy of award being delivered to parties under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not to be construed narrowly. The Court held that once the party seeking extension of limitation by applying Section 31(5) of the Act is aware of the contents of the alleged unsigned award, the limitation cannot be extended.Section 31(5) of Act of 1996 provides that after passing of an arbitral award, its signed copy must be...

Issues On Merits, Should Be Raised Before Arbitrator, Not In Section 11 Proceedings ; Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that objection regarding the insufficiency of service is considered to be on merits and therefore should be raised before the Arbitrator. Brief Facts: The petitioner, Delhivery Limited, and the Respondent, Far Left Retail Private Limited, entered into a Service Agreement, which later resulted in a dispute. The Petitioner claimed that the Respondent failed to make payments for invoices raised in accordance with the terms...

Executing Court to Determine Stamping on Arbitral Award Meets Requirements Under Indian Stamp Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana held that the executing court cannot dismiss the objections regarding the adequacy of the arbitral award without determining whether the award meets the stamping requirements outlined in the Indian Stamp Act. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a dispute initiated by the Respondent-Bank against the Petitioner for the recovery of a loan amount that the Petitioner borrowed and subsequently defaulted on....

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13th May - 19th May

Delhi High CourtDelhi High Court Sets Aside Orders Upholding Arbitral Award In Favour of Kalanithi Maran In SpiceJet Dispute, Quashes ₹270 Crore Payment Directive Case Title: Ajay Singh and Anr vs Kal Airways Private Limited & Anr. Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 179/2023 The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside a Single-judge decision that upheld an arbitral tribunal's decision requiring the cash-strapped SpiceJet and ...

Time Spent From Award Correction And Delivery Of Signed Copy Of Order Should Be Excluded From The Period Of Limitation: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that the starting point of limitation for setting aside an award in a case where a request under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is made is the date of disposal of such request. The bench held that the time spent from the date of disposal of such request till the signed copy of the order is delivered to the party shall necessarily stand excluded while calculating the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the ...

Filing Information In Sealed Covers For Enforcement Of Arbitral Award Is Contrary To Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the procedure of filing information in sealed covers for enforcement of arbitral award is contrary to the basic process of justice. It held that the concept of sealed covers also makes serious inroads into the principle of natural justice and fairness. The bench held that: “If the respondent was in the dark about the financial affairs of the petitioner prior to the filing of the application under section 9 of the...

Arbitrator's Power Under Section 32(2)(c) Can Be Exercised Only If Continuation Of Proceedings Has Become Unnecessary Or Impossible: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.The bench held that the mere existence of a reason for terminating the proceedings is not sufficient. The reason must be such that the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.It held that:“The...

Existence Of Arbitration Clause Doesn't Automatically Bar Criminal Proceedings: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that held that the existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically bar criminal proceedings. It held that quashing of cognizance or proceedings, as well as the initiation of arbitral proceedings related to commercial transactions, are not determinative factors. The bench held that merely because there is a remedy available for breach of contract through arbitration does not automatically lead the court to...

S.42 Arbitration Act | Party Filing S.9 Application In One Court Can't Dispute Jurisdiction Later While Dealing With S.34 Application: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that once party has filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before one Court, he cannot raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of that Court in dealing with any application arising out of the same arbitration agreement in view of Section 42 of the Act.Section 42 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in Part-I of the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where...

Supreme Court Quarterly Digest 2024- ARBITRATION (Jan - Mar)

SUPREME COURT QUARTERLY DIGEST 2024Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996An award could be said to be against the public policy of India in, inter alia, the following circumstances: 1. When an award is, on its face, in patent violation of a statutory provision 2. When the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal has failed to adopt a judicial approach in deciding the dispute. 3. When an award is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. When an award is unreasonable or perverse. 5. When an award...