Arbitration Act | Court Should Refrain From Delving Into Hyper-Technical Aspects Of Arbitration Agreement At Section 11(6) Stage: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that court at the Section 11(6) stage should refrain from delving into hyper-technical aspects or intricacies of the arbitration agreement. Instead, the bench held that if an agreement visibly contains an arbitration clause and involves a dispute suitable for arbitration, it must be referred to the arbitrator as a matter of course. Brief Facts: The Petitioner entered into two Barter Agreements for advertisement...

Arbitration Act | Section 6 Commercial Courts Act Is Enabling Provision, Doesn't Override Arbitration Agreement: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Appeal

The Allahabad High Court division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is an enabling provision and does not override agreements made between parties regarding jurisdiction. It held that even if a Commercial Court has jurisdiction as per Section 6, this jurisdiction can be excluded by an arbitration agreement between the parties specifying a different jurisdiction based on their territorial situs. Section 6...

Arbitration Weekly Round-up: 1st April to 7th April 2024

High Courts Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court Directs Inquiry Against Officers Who Failed To File Arbitration Appeals Within Prescribed Limitation Case Title: Executive Engineer Drainage Division v. Ms Ayush Construction And Another [APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 89 of 2024] The Allahabad High Court has directed Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against...

Use Of The Word 'Seat' Is Not Compulsory In An Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the use of word 'seat' in an arbitration clause is not compulsory to determine the jurisdiction of the Court(s) which would have jurisdiction over the proceedings arising out of the arbitration agreement. The bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that there would be no seat and venue dichotomy when the jurisdiction conferred on other courts is made subject to the arbitration agreement. It held that in absence of any contrary Indicia, the referred...

Decision Of Arbitral Tribunal To Not Implead A Party To Arbitration Is Not An 'Interim Award': Delhi High Court

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan of High Court of Delhi has held that a decision of the arbitral tribunal to refuse to implead a party to the arbitral proceedings does not constitute an 'Interim Award' which can be directly challenged under Section 34 of the Act pending arbitral proceedings. Facts The parties entered into a concession agreement dated 15.07.2011. Thereafter, the respondent also entered into State Support Agreement (SSA) with the State of Gujarat. A dispute...

Suo Moto Extension Of Limitation By Supreme Court| The Balance Days Of Limitation Left On 15.03.2020 Would Become Available W.E.F. 01.03.2022: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the balance days of limitation which were available to a party on 15.03.2020 would become available with effect from 01.03.2022, which is the day on which the benefit of the Suo Moto Extension by the Supreme Court expired. The bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that a petition under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act would not be time barred when it is filed within the balance period of limitation calculated from 01.03.2022. Facts The...

Registration Of Shares In Favor Of The Pledgee As The "Beneficial Owner" Does Not Amount To A Sale Of Shares: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that mere registration of shares in favor of the pledgee as the "beneficial owner" does not amount to a sale of shares, and the pledgee is not required to account for any sale proceeds until the shares are actually sold to a third party. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the pledgee's right of redemption of shares remains alive until such actual sale takes place. It set aside an arbitration award wherein the arbitrator held that once...

Final Determination On Question Of Arbitrability Should Be Made By The Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that final determination on the issue of arbitrability of the dispute and the subject matter should be made by the arbitrator. It held that the scope of Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of the agreement. The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the Court can interfere only when the dispute is ex-facie not arbitrable. It held that an agreement prima facie exists when...

Arbitrator Committed No Illegality In Accepting A Claim In Toto When No Written Statement Of Defence Was Filed: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Division Bench of Justices Arun Palli and Vikram Aggarwal of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that an arbitration award cannot be considered patently illegal due to arbitrator's acceptance of a claim in toto if the respondent did not file any written statement of defence nor led any evidence to contest the claimed amount. Facts The respondent (The Haryana State Coop. Supply and Marketing Fed. Limited) invited tenders for leasing out rice mills. The bid of the...

Writ Petition Cannot Be Entertained To Challenge An Arbitral Award, Statutory Remedy Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act Must Be Availed: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that a writ petition filed to challenge an arbitral award is not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh held that a writ petition should be dismissed in limine when there is a statutory appeal available. It held that statutory remedies available under Sections 34 and 37 of the A&C Act cannot be...

30 Days Grace Period Expired During Court Break, Section 34 Petition Can't Be Entertained Even If Filed On Reopening: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot be entertained by the Court even if the 30 days condonable grace period given under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act expired during the Court breaks and the petition was filed on the date on which the Court reopened. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that Section 10 of General Clauses Act, which provides that an act is considered to be done within...

Arbitration Quarterly Digest 2024

Supreme Court Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Modified Under Sections 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court Case Title: S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14 The Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law that any attempt to “modify an award” while adjudicating Sections 34 and 37 petitions is not permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging...