Delhi High Court Sets Aside Orders Upholding Arbitral Award In Favour of Kalanithi Maran In SpiceJet Dispute, Quashes ₹270 Crore Payment Directive

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 its chairman, Ajay Singh, to refund ₹ 270 crore plus interest to media baron Kalanithi Maran and his company, KAL Airways. The arbitral award directed SpiceJet to refund ₹ 270 crore to Maran, with additional interest rates of 12% per annum on warrants and 18% per annum on the...

Appointing High Court Has Power To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate U/s 29A: Allahabad High Court Reiterates Settled Position Till Larger Bench Decides Issue

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that if the High Court appoints the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, it has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 29A application for extending the mandate of the arbitrator. While acknowledging that the issue of the appropriate court for Section 29A applications was pending before a larger bench, the High Court held that the current position continued to be governed by previous judgments such as...

S.5 Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Application U/S 34 Arbitration Act, Timeline Provided To Be Adhered Strictly: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the timeline provided in Section 34(3) for challenging an arbitral award must be strictly adhered to.Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a period of 3 months for challenging an arbitral award. Proviso to Section 34(3) empowers Court to condone a delay of 30 days if sufficient cause for delay is...

Special Appeal/ Letters Patent Appeal Against Order U/S.11 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that by virtue of Section 11(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, special appeal and letters patent appeal against orders passed under Section 11(4), (5) and (6) of the Act is not maintainable. The Court held that since the Amending Act of 2019 which did away with Section 11(7) had not been notified by way of Official Gazette, the bar placed by Section 11(7) is still in force.Section 11(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 bars any...

Delay In Filling Appeal Under Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned Without Good Reason: Allahabad High Court

While deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Allahabad High Court has held that a delay in filling the appeal could not be condoned without finding compelling reasons for the same.Appellant approached the High Court under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 after a delay of 393 days. The Court relied on M/s N.V. International v. State of Asam and Ors. wherein the Apex Court added a grace period of 30 days to the standard period of 90 days available for...

Though Legal Issue Can Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Proceedings, It Depends On Facts: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that though a legal issue going to the root of the matter can be raised for the very first time in appellate proceedings but the same is dependent on the facts of the case.The bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held “There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that a legal issue going into the root of the matter can be raised for the very first time in the appellate proceedings. However, the question is dependent upon the...

[Arbitration Act] Enforcement Of Foreign Awards Should Not Be Declined On Composition Of Tribunal If Not Raised Before Tribunal Or Seat Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that enforcement of foreign awards should not be declined on grounds relating to the composition of the tribunal, which could have been raised before the Tribunal and before the seat Court, but were not so raised. It held that the judgment debtor did not object, even at the stage of appointment, on this ground. The bench held that: “This argument is quite evidently an afterthought, intended only as speculative litigation with...

Seat Of Arbitration To Be Determined On Basis Of Connection With Arbitration Proceedings, Not With Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the seat of the arbitration proceedings is to be determined on the basis of connection with the arbitral proceedings, and not with the cause of action for the underlying disputes. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a dispute between the Respondent, registered as a medium enterprise under the MSME Act and based in Pathankot, Punjab, and the Petitioner, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation. The...

Court Can Not Mechanically Send Dispute To Arbitral Tribunal, Must Consider Fundamental Issues u/s 11(6A): Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that the Court is not required to behave in a mechanical manner to send a party's dispute to the arbitral tribunal and must consider the fundamental issues, within the parameters outlined in Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that: “Since it is a well-settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court at the stage for making reference is very limited and the referral court...

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction under S.9 of A&C act Restricting Savera Eats' Usage of 'Burger Singh'

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited to prevent Savera Eats from using the “Burger Singh” registered trademark. The bench held that despite the termination of the franchise agreement, Savera Eats continued to operate the franchise outlet under the Petitioner's registered trademark “Burger Singh”. Brief Facts: Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited, the Petitioner, approached the Delhi...

[Arbitration Act] Once Arbitral Tribunal In Place, Court's Consideration Of Section 9 Application Should Be Limited: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the question as to the consideration of the grounds, upon which the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is based can only arise when it is being considered by the Court on the merits, i.e., when the court is called upon to apply its mind to the grounds urged in the application. Further, the bench held once an Arbitral Tribunal is established, the court...

Misconceived Section 9 & Section 11 Applications; Bar Should Take Necessary Steps, Spare Courts Of 'Unpleasant Duty': Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that it is for members of the Bar to introspect and take necessary steps and spare the Courts of the unpleasant duty. The decision came while reviewing applications presented before the Commercial Court and High Court, which were held to be beyond their jurisdiction. Specifically, the Commercial Court was held to be not empowered to entertain applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,...