S. 9 Petition for Interim Relief in International Commercial Arbitration Not Classified as 'Arbitration Case', Must Be Filed as 'Miscellaneous Civil Case': Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Devnarayan Mishra dismissed a petition seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, stating it should have been filed as a 'Miscellaneous Civil Case' rather than an 'Arbitration Case' based on Chapter 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Conduct of Arbitral Proceedings) Rules, 2008. Brief Facts: Ilwonhibrand Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”) entered into a sale...

Arbitrator's Mandate Would Not Be Terminated When The Delays In Arbitral Proceedings Are Not Attributable To It: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that an arbitrator's mandate would not terminate when the proceedings are not completed within timelines agreed by the parties, if the delays in the conduct of the proceedings are attributable to the party seeking termination of the mandate. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that generally, in an arbitration not governed by Section 29A, the arbitrator's mandate expires upon its failure to conclude the proceedings within the time period agreed by...

Arbitrator Failed To Deal With Material Contentions, Arbitral Award Would Not Satisfy The Requirement Of A Reasoned Award: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that when the arbitral tribunal fails to deal with submissions of a party on a contentious issue, the resultant award would not fulfil the requirements of a reasoned award as required under Section 31 of the A&C Act. It held that the tribunal cannot simply accept unquantified claims without assigning reasons and without dealing with the objections to those claims. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that once it is found...

Arbitration Under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 Cannot Be Invoked Without Availing Pre-Arbitral Remedy Within Limitation: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur, has held that the Arbitration under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 cannot be invoked without first invoking the pre-arbitral in-house remedy provided under the agreement within the period of 30 days given under the Agreement. The bench of Justices Sheel Nagu and Vinay Saraf held that the pre-arbitral in-house remedy must be invoked within the 30 days from the termination of the works order as provided...

Person Interested In Outcome Of Dispute Can't Appoint Arbitrator: Kerala High Court Nullifies Appointment Made By Kerala Government For Its Wholly Owned Undertaking

The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice G. Girish held that the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Government of Kerala violated Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as well as the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Perkins Eastman case. The court held that the Government of Kerala being the holder of 99.99% of the equity shares with voting rights of a company had an interest in the dispute. Consequently, it held that this inherent interest...

If Arbitration Award Not Challenged Under Section 34, Can't Be Challenged At Execution: Madras High Court

The High Court of Madras at Madurai has held that an Executing Court cannot go behind an arbitration award and decides issues on merit of the award. The bench of Justice G. Ilangovan held that an arbitration award can only be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act and party failing to challenge the award therein cannot raise contentious issues on merit of the award before the executing court. Facts The parties entered into a hypothecation agreement wherein the petitioner...

Mandate Of The Arbitrator Cannot Be Terminated When The Delay Was Not Attributable To Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that mandate of the arbitrator cannot be terminated when the delay in proceedings was on account of pendency of appeal against the decision of the arbitral tribunal. The Court held that time consumed in the appeal and the consequent SLP and clarificatory applications cannot be attributed to the arbitral tribunal as a delay in the conduct of arbitral proceedings. Facts The parties entered into a Loan Agreement...

Arbitrator Appointment Cannot Be Called Unilateral When Respondent Consented To Appointment From Panel Of 5 Names: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the appointment of the arbitrator cannot be called unilateral when the tribunal was constituted pursuant to the consent by the respondent to the appointment from a panel of 5 names. The Bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh held that appointment of arbitrator from a panel of 5 names consisting of retired govt. officials would be valid in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railways which continues to hold the field ...

Power Of General Manager Of Employer To Confirm Nomination Of Arbitrator By The Contractor Runs Contrary To Principles Of Impartiality And Independence: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that the power of General Manager of the employer to confirm nomination of arbitrator by the Contractor runs contrary to principles of impartiality and independence. It held that nomination by a party of its arbitrator cannot be subject to approval by the other party. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that for an appointment of arbitrator from a panel unilaterally prepared by a party, it must be broad and diverse to allow free choice to the...

While Court's Jurisdiction Is Limited At The Time Of Making A Reference, It Is Not Expected To Mechanically Refer Dispute To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while the court's jurisdiction is limited at the time of making a reference, it is not expected to mechanically refer the dispute to arbitration. The Court also held that once a party has chosen to file a civil suit to get the disputes resolved, it cannot be permitted to invoke arbitration when the suit fails. The Court also held that arbitration clause in an earlier agreement cannot be invoked if the ...

Delhi High Court Imposes 5 Lakhs Rupees Cost On A Party For Failure To Disclose An Unfavourable Order Under SARFAESI Act While Seeking Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act

The High Court of Delhi has imposed costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on a party that failed to disclose an unfavourable order under SARFAESI Act while seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that pendency of proceedings under SARFASI Act is not a bar on initiation of proceedings under A&C Act, however, a party must disclose a fact essential for fair adjudication on the dispute. Facts The Parties entered into an...

Debt Acknowledged In Letters, Delhi High Court Grants Benefit Of Section 18 To Hold Invocation Of Arbitration Within Limitation

The High Court of Delhi has held that assurance given by a party to repay the debts in letter issued to the other party would amount to an acknowledgement of the debt within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The bench of Justic Prathiba M. Singh held that such an acknowledgement would give rise to a fresh cause of action and the period of limitation would run afresh from the date of such acknowledgement as provided under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Facts ...