No Writ Against Order Of Tribunal Rejecting Application U/S 16 Of The A&C Act Unless It Shocks The Conscience Of The Court: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal rejecting an application challenging its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the A&C Act cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless the order is so perverse that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad reiterated that to protect the sanctity of the arbitral process, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with an order of the arbitral tribunal in exercise of their writ...

MSMED Act | Service Supplier Registered During Ongoing Contract Can Avail Benefits For Services Provided After Registration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a service supplier, upon registering during an ongoing contract, is eligible to avail benefits under the MSMED Act for services provided after registration. It held that it is always open to the arbitrator to decide this issue even as a preliminary issue. Brief Facts: A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was released by the Petitioner for the construction of a 200 bedded hospital in Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi....

Sec. 11, A&C Act Petition Must Be Filed In High Court Where Cause Of Action Arose, Not Necessarily At Principle Place Of Business: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that such a petition should be filed at the place of the subordinate office of the corporation. “In the present case as well, the subordinate office of the respondent is situated at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and for the said reason, the State of Madhya Pradesh will have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition...

Arbitrator's Finding Based On Proper Appreciation And Interpretation Of Prevalent Conditions: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Section 37 Appeal

The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P Mayee dismissed appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that arbitrator's finding was based upon the proper appreciation and interpretation of the prevalent conditions and the site inspection along with the documents on record. Brief Facts: The Appellant, who awarded a contract to the Respondent No.1 - contractor, had disputes over the final bill for the...

Application Under Section 29A A&C Can Be Allowed Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be allowed even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. Section 29A deals with the time limit for arbitral award. It specifies that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference. However, parties may extend this period by mutual consent for up to...

Arbitration Act | When Parties Engage In Constant Communication, Unjust To Dismiss Claim Solely On Grounds Of Being Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that it would be an unnatural construction of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where a party with a bona fide and a genuine claim is left in the lurch on the defence of the claim being barred by limitation. It held that when parties engage in constant communication for the settlement of claims, it would be unjust to dismiss a claim solely on the grounds of being time-barred. Brief Facts: ...

Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible Under Arbitration Act And Negotiable Instruments Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Anil B Katti held that simultaneous proceedings can be carried on under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The bench further held that a party cannot be acquitted solely on the basis of presence of an arbitration agreement. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to M/s. Durga Projects Inc. (“Appellant”), a registered partnership firm, which entered into a joint development agreement...

Condonation Of Delay Re- Filing S. 34, A&C Act Application Must Be Allowed If Delay Is Procedural And Curable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that not every defect leads to the dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and took a liberal approach for condonation of delay. It held that defects were not fundamental in nature and could be termed as curable or procedural. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) and filed a petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and...

Section 47 Of The CPC Does Not Apply To Proceedings For Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Karnataka High Court

The High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 47 of the CPC does not apply to proceedings for enforcement of arbitral award. The bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha held that an arbitral award can only be challenged on the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. It held that the award is deemed to be a decree for the purpose of the enforcement, however, this deeming fiction is limited to its enforcement only. The Court held that Section 47 of CPC, which...

Notice For Appointment Of Arbitrator Need Not Be Addressed To General Manager, Registered Post To Railways Fulfils The Condition: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that notice for appointment of an Arbitrator was not necessarily required to be addressed to the General Manager of the Railways. Notice to invoke arbitration was said to be fulfilled as it was sent by a registered post to the Railways. Brief Facts: Northern Railway (“Respondent”) floated a tender for improving of flooring of the second-class waiting hall at Amritsar and repairing of damaged flooring of...

Questions Of Agreement Implications And Legal Provisions Need To Be Decided By Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 A&C Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh held that questions of implications of agreements, Section 64 of the Contract Act, whether the disputes relate to the construction stage or implications of legal provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 need to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. It held that the scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow and limited to ascertain an error apparent on the face of the record. Brief Facts: Pnc Infratech Limited ...

Parties Not Signatories To Joint Venture Agreement Cannot Be Forced To Arbitration Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice M G Uma held that the parties not signatories to the Joint Venture Agreement, stipulating the arbitration clause, cannot be forced to arbitration proceedings. Brief Facts: The Platintiff approached the Karnataka High Court (“High Court”) and filed a writ of certiorari to annul the order to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). The Plaintiff contended...