Arbitration Act | 'Court' Under Section 29A Takes Character Of Appointing Authority Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the word “Court” in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator takes the character of the appointing authority under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, it held that can only be the Court which has the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court seeking an extension...

MSMED Act | No Bar In 'filing' Petition Under Section 34 A&C Without Pre-deposit of 75% Award Amount, but Will Not Be 'Entertained' Without Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that there is no bar in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same can be filed without pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. However, the bench held that the petition will not be “entertained” under Section 19 of MSMED Act without the deposit of 75 % of the awarded amount. Brief Facts: The...

Appointment Of Arbitrators From Panel Of Serving/Retired Railway Officials Contravenes Section 12(5) & 7th Schedule: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that panel/appointment of the serving/retired officials of the Railways, as members of the Arbitral Tribunal, is hit by Section 12(5) and the 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. “When the General Manager, N.F. Railway himself cannot be made an Arbitrator in view of Section 12(5) and the 7th Schedule to the 1996 Act, the panel/appointment of serving/retired officials of the Railways as Arbitrators...

Challenge Of Compensation Under National Highways Act, 1956 Fall Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court single bench of Justice Rekha Borana held that determination of compensation under National Highways Act, 1956 can be challenged before the arbitrator appointment by the Central Government. The bench held that challenges to such determination fall under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The Appellant approached the Rajasthan High Court (“High Court”) and challenged the orders issued by the District Judge wherein the applications/objections...

Settlement Process By Chairman And Managing Director Doesn't Involve Adjudication, Not Final And Binding: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury held that the settlement process undertaken by the Chairman and Managing Director of the company doesn't involve adjudication. It held that the termination of a settlement attempt does not always result in a “final and binding” decision. Relevant Clause of the Agreement: “8. Arbitration and Applicable laws – 8.1. The parties hereby agree that any dispute arising in connection with this...

MSME Act | Council Cannot Entertain Application For Maintainability Of Reference At Conciliation Stage: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court single bench of Justice KR Mohapatra held that Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council doesn't have power to entertain an application with regard to the maintainability of the reference at the conciliation stage under Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. It held that question of maintainability can only be adjudicated if arbitration is taken up by the Council. “The question of maintainability can only be adjudicated if arbitration...

Sub-lease Agreement Excluded Disputes Related To Public Premise From Arbitration, Making Them Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that arbitral tribunal should generally be the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability, except in cases where claims were manifestly and ex facie non-arbitrable. It held that Sub-lease Agreement excluded the disputes related to public premise from arbitration, therefore, making them non-arbitrable. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) and filed a petition under Section...

Once Party Submits Itself To Jurisdiction Of Court And Abandons Section 8 Application, Cannot Seek Reference u/s 8: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that held that once a defendant submits itself to the jurisdiction of the Court and abandons its application under Section 8, it cannot subsequently seek referral of the disputes to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: The Defendant No.1 field an application in Delhi High Court under Section 5 and Section 8 read with Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration...

Tax Invoices Stating Arbitration Clause Binds Parties To Arbitration: Delhi High Court Refers Parties To Arbitration

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathibha M. Singh held that the tax invoices explicitly containing the arbitration clause and parties without raising any dispute concerning it are legally bound by the arbitration clause. “In the present case, the parties have a running account which is not in dispute. Two purchase orders may have been placed by the Respondent and various invoices may have been issued by the Petitioner. These invoices clearly state that the terms and...

Section 3 A&C | Deemed Service Is Rebuttable, If Party Establishes Delivery Could Not Be Made Despite Fulfilling Conditions u/s 3: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to a party isn't merely procedural but confers a substantive right upon them to challenge the award within the statutory period. The bench held that the presumption of deemed service under Section 3 of the Arbitration Act is rebuttable and can be negated if a party establishes that delivery of the written communication could not have been effected despite fulfilling...

One Party Cannot Appoint 2/3rd Of The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel for appointment of arbitrator cannot be restricted to mere 3 names as it would violate broad-based representation. Moreover, one party cannot appoint 2/3rd members of the arbitral tribunal as it would violate principles of neutrality and counter-balancing. The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma also held that a petition under Section 11 cannot be dismissed on ground of non-service of Section 21 notice if the earlier petition under Section...

Unless Clear Contrary Intention, Venue In Arbitration Clause Should Be Seat Of Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court Rejects Section 11 Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that if there are no clear indications to the contrary, the venue specified in an arbitration clause should be considered as the seat of arbitral proceedings. It underscored importance of discerning the intention of the parties by examining the entirety of the contract's terms. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court (“Delhi High Court”) under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation...