Waiver Of Arbitrator's Ineligibility Must Be Made By Agreement In Writing, Section 12(5) Does Not Provide For Deemed Consent: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice RI Chagla held that the ineligibility of the arbitrator could only be waived if both parties agree by an express agreement in writing as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Parties' consent cannot be implied otherwise. Brief Facts: The Petitioners entered into a User Car Dealer/DSA Agreement (“Agreement”) with HDFC Bank Limited (“Respondent”). Clause 22 of the Agreement had an arbitration clause. It stipulated that the disputes...

MSMED Act | Imposition Of Three Times Bank Interest By MSME Facilitation Council Is Violation Of Principles Of Reasonableness And Fairness: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court single bench of Justice R. N. Manjula held that the imposition of three times of the bank rate of interest on the award amount by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Facilitation Council is violation of fundamental principles of reasonableness and fairness. It held that the Petitioner is indirectly deprived of his appeal remedy in view of such high rate of interest. Brief Facts: The Petitioner had a dispute with M/s Unicon Engineers (“Second respondent”),...

No Requirement Of Fresh Section 21 Notice For Re-Commencing The Arbitration After The First Award Is Set Aside Under Section 34: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that there is no requirement of Section 21 notice for re-commencing the arbitration after the first award is set aside under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre held that in such a situation there would be no requirement of a fresh invocation notice as the opposite party would already be aware of the existence of the dispute. Facts The parties entered into a Dealership Agreement dated 19/06/2013. Pursuant thereto,...

Allahabad High Court Directs Inquiry Against Officers Who Failed To File Arbitration Appeals Within Prescribed Limitation

The Allahabad High Court has directed Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh to conduct an inquiry against officers who were responsible for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which were filed after a delay of 513 days.While dismissing the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench comprising of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that “the proceedings...

Arbitration Monthly Round-Up -March 2024

Supreme Court Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred : Supreme Court Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 29 OF 2023 In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 25th March to 31st March 2024

Supreme Court Enforcement Of Foreign Award Must Be Refused Only Rarely, International Standards To Be Applied To Determine Bias : Supreme Court Case Title: AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. v. HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC )267 In a crucial judgment, while allowing the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the Supreme Court (on March 04), held that to determine the factor of arbitral bias, Court must endeavour to follow international...

Patent Illegality | For Claim For Damages There Must Be Proof Of Actual Loss: Bombay High Court Stays Arbitral Award

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice R.I. Chagla stayed an arbitral award noting that the Arbitrator contravened the settled law that for a claim for damages, there must be proof of actual loss which is sine qua non for such claim. It held that the Arbitrator failed to consider the proof of loss while awarding damages to the Claimant. Brief Facts: The Applicant/Petitioner (Alkem Laboratories Limited) approached the Bombay High Court for unconditional stay on the Award and...

Delhi High Court Directs Arbitrator To Refund 6 Lakh Of 14.5 Lakh Fee Paid By Parties

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed the arbitrator to refund Rs.6,00,000- of the fees of Rs.14,50,000/- paid by the parties to the arbitrator noting the arbitrator had conducted a total of twelve hearings, of which only three resulted in substantive orders. Moreover, the bench noted that the issues in the arbitral proceedings had not yet been framed, and the arbitral proceedings had been on hold for over a year. Brief Facts: The appointed...

Employee Of Railways Cannot Be Appointed As Arbitrator, Violates Section 12(1) A&C And Perkins Eastman: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held the personnel who is the employee of the Indian Railways cannot be appointed as an arbitrator as it would violate Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the law laid down in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 outlines provisions related to the impartiality and independence of arbitrators. Brief...

Section 37 A&C | Explanation For Delay Of 191 Days Is Sketchy And Doesn't Corelate Any Event To Specific Dates: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay of 191 days for petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that explanation provided for the delay was sketchy and did not corelate any event to specific dates or time period. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pertains to the appealable orders. This section outlines the orders from...

Court Empowered To Extend Time For Passing Arbitral Award Even If It Is Already Passed: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman held that the Court would be empowered to extend the time for passing the award under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even in a case where the arbitral award has already been passed if there exit sufficient grounds for such an extension. Brief Fact: The matter pertained to an arbitral award for which the time allotted lapsed on 28.2.2022. However, the award was not rendered until 6.5.2023, without...

Telecom Services - Franchisee Agreement, Not Subject To TDSAT Jurisdiction, Delhi High Court Refers Dispute To Arbitration

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a mere franchisee responsible for promotion of services provided by the petitioner, ergo, it does not fall under the definitions of licensee, licensor, service provider, or group of consumers as per the TRAI Act. It held that bar under Section 14 only applies in relation to telecommunication services and not to every agreement involving a service provider. Facts The parties entered into a franchise and consultancy...