Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act And RDDB Act Are Complimentary, Can Continue Parallelly: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that proceedings under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act are complimentary to each other and both the proceedings can continue parallelly. The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that since both the proceedings are complimentary, there would be no application of principle of election of remedies and the secured creditor can avail both the remedies together. Facts The Petitioner availed a loan for an amount...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 8th April To 14th April 2024

Allahabad High Court Whether Claims Prior To Work Order Are Covered By The Arbitration Clause Or Not Is To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Blacklead Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Ekana Sportz City Pvt. Ltd, Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 94 of 2023 The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the...

Jurisdiction Of MSEF Council Wrongly Invoked, Time Spent Therein Excluded From Limitation: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that when the jurisdiction of the MSEF Council is wrongly invoked due to uncertainty in law, the time spent before the Council would not be counted while calculating limitation. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, which exempts the bond fide time spent before the wrong forum, would be given in such a situation. Facts The parties entered into an agreement dated 14.10.2011 for execution of work...

Notice Of Dispute To MSEF Council Under Section 18 Of MSMED Act Can Be Considered As Notice Of Arbitration Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a notice given by a party invoking jurisdiction of MSEF Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act can be considered to be a notice of arbitration required under Section 21 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation and M/S Silpi Industries, the position of law with respect to an entity not registered under the MSMED Act at the time of...

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Termination Of Arbitration Proceedings With Costs Of 25,000/- Citing Delay By Petitioner Itself

The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a writ petition seeking termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 29A of the A&C Act by observing that the arbitrator had proceeded diligently and it was the petitioner itself who had taken various adjournments causing delay. It imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner. The bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and C.M. Poonacha held that the 12 months period for delivery of an arbitral award under Section 29A would begin from the ...

Insistence On Pre-Arbitral Steps Would Be Meaningless When The Respondent Fails To Give Reply To Notices Issued By The Petitioner: Delhi High Court

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh of Delhi High Court has held that pre-arbitral steps providing for resolution of disputes through mutual talks or through Ombudsman would lose its relevance when a party fails to give reply to notices issued by the other party seeking amicable settlement. Facts The parties entered into a Redistribution Stockist Agreement dated 14.07.2021 wherein the petitioner was appointed as a Stockist for the respondent. Clause 21 of the agreement provided ...

Service On Whatsapp Number And Email Address Mentioned In The Agreement Constitutes A Valid Service: Delhi High Court

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that service of the petition on the WhatsApp number and the Email address mentioned in the agreement between the parties constitutes a valid service. Facts The parties entered into a lease agreement dated 21.03.2018 wherein a vehicle was leased out by the petitioner to respondent no.1. Clause 10.2 of the agreement was the arbitration clause. A dispute arose between the parties, leading to invocation of...

Writ Not Maintainable When Efficacious Remedy Before The Arbitrator Is Available: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur bench has held that a writ would not be entertained when the petitioners fail to avail the efficacious contractual remedy before the Arbitrator. The bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that merely because the nominated arbitrator is the managing director of the respondent corporation, it cannot be assumed that it would not be able to fairly discharge its functions as an arbitrator. Facts The petitioners (Rice Millers) entered...

Arbitrator Can Award Compensation On 'Guesswork' When Loss Is Difficult To Prove Subject To Maximum Amount Payable Under LD Clause: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitrator is empowered to award compensation to an aggrieved party that has suffered losses on the basis of 'rough and ready method' or 'guesswork' when the loss is difficult to prove. The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Amit Bansal held that as long as there is material available with the arbitrator that damages have been suffered, but it does not give him an insight into the granular details, he is permitted the leeway to employ honest...

Whether Claims Prior To Work Order Are Covered By The Arbitration Clause Or Not Is To Be Decided By The Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court

The High Court of Allahabad has held that the issue whether claims between the parties prior to the work order is question are covered by the arbitration clause or not is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court at pre-arbitration stage under Section 11 of the A&C Act. The Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar also reiterated that after the judgment in Perkins an interested party cannot act as or appoint a sole arbitrator. Facts The respondent issued a work order dated...

Limitation Period For Filing An Application For Substitution Of An Arbitrator Is 3 Years: Delhi High Court

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 14 of the A&C Act seeking substitution of the arbitrator is three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. The Court also held that an arbitrator would be deemed to have abandoned the arbitration if no proceedings take place for a substantial period of time. Facts The parties entered into an agreement dated...

Calcutta High Court Dismisses Petition Opposing Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award Based On Constructive Res-Judicata

The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application by Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL) under Sections 48/49 of the A&C Act seeking to refuse enforcement of the foreign award in favour of the Centrotrade Minerals. The bench of Justice Sugato Majmudar held that once the enforceability of an award is affirmed by the Supreme Court, it cannot be opposed on a new ground which could have been taken in earlier proceedings in relation to the enforceability. It held that such an ...