Fraud Regarding Internal Management Of Company Doesn't Go To Root Of Contract, Dispute Is Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that fraud alleging regarding the internal management of the company doesn't go to the root of the contract. Therefore, the bench held that the dispute concerning the lack of authority to enter into a contract are arbitrable. The bench held that the Court while deciding a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only required to see the existence of an Arbitration Clause. Brief Facts: ...

Proceedings Under IBC Doesn't Exclude Court Jurisdiction To Entertain Section 11 A&C Applications: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that proceedings contemplated in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) do not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the court or authorities to entertain applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act or other proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor against another party. It held that even if a Joint Venture is undergoing insolvency, the bench held that preclude the corporate debtor from filing...

Requirement Of Pre-litigation Mediation Under Section 12-A Of Commercial Courts Act Is Mandatory: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that the requirement of pre-litigation meditation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory in nature. Section 12-A of the Act outlines the mandatory requirement for pre-institution mediation before filing a suit, provided urgent interim relief is not sought. The Central Government may authorize Legal Services Authorities for this purpose, with a three-month mediation timeframe extendable by two...

Allegations On Arbitrator's Independence Under Item 24 Of 5th Schedule Of Arbitration Act Is Not Automatically A Ground For Disqualification: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar held that the allegation under Item No. 24 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn't automatically disqualify the arbitrator without disclosing any specific relationship between the arbitrator and the party. Item No.24 of the Fifth Schedule states that doubts about an arbitrator's independence or impartiality can arise if they currently serve or have served as an arbitrator in another...

Section 9 Not Res Judicata For Section 17 Application When Withdrawal Is Conditional: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 37(2)(B) Application

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Section 9 application under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot act as res judicata for Section 17 application when the withdrawal of Section 9 application is conditional between the parties. The bench dismissed the reliance on Kanchan Kapoor v. Swaran Kumar noting that the principles of res judicata applied in that case due to the appellant's unconditional withdrawal of an appeal against a civil court...

Conditions Of Remand Not Followed, Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Under NHAI Act In Writ Jurisdiction

The Allahabad High Court has held that existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside an arbitral award passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Jhansi acting as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1965 for not following the directions given by the District Judge while allowing appeal under...

Section 29A Petition Maintainable If Filed Before Award Is Delivered and Not If Award Is Delivered : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when filed before the award is delivered during the ongoing petition, but becomes non-maintainable if filed after the award is delivered and proceedings for setting aside have commenced. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a Loan Agreement where the Petitioner acted as the lender, Respondent No. 1 served as the principal...

Negotiation Requires Active Communication Between Parties, Non-Responsive Party Not Actively Participating: Delhi High Court Refers Matter To Arbitration

The Delhi High Court single bench comprising held that 'negotiation' necessitates communication between the involved parties, asserting that a party failing to respond to legal notices from another cannot be considered actively participating in the negotiation process. Consequently, Justice Sharma referred the matter to arbitral tribunal. Brief Facts: The matter pertained a franchise agreement forged on 26.05.2017 between M/s Kaur Cookies Pvt. Ltd. and Respondent No.1, facilitated...

Non Filing Of Arbitral Award Along Section 34 Is A Fatal Defect, Makes Filing Non-Est: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that non filing of the arbitral award along with the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a fatal defect, making such filing as non-est. The bench held that the absence of a copy of the award renders it impossible to appreciate the grounds for seeking to set aside the award. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) and filed a petition under...

Allegations Of Fraud, Misappropriation With No Public Implication Doesn't Make Dispute Non-Arbitrable: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court single bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal held that the High Court noted that allegations in criminal proceedings regarding fraud and misappropriation of funds, being inter se parties and having no public implications, do not make the dispute non-arbitrable. Brief Facts: The matter revolved around the partnership firm M/s. Om Polyplast, through a partnership deed involving Pradeep Gaurishankar Trivedi, Vikas Raj Chhajer (Respondent), and Mr. Manoj N. Pandya....

Delhi High Court Imposes Costs Of Rs.1 Lakh On Indian Oil For Taking Inconsistent Stance In Section 34 A&C Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan set aside an arbitral award noting that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited failed to present evidence before the Arbitrator, thereby, making it impossible to adjudicate the contention raised regarding payment of dues. The bench imposed a substantial costs of Rs.1 lakh on the Indian Oil for taking unjustifiable contrary stands at various points in the proceedings. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to contracts which were ...

Multiple Arbitration Before Different Arbitral Tribunals Is Counterproductive And Should Be Avoided: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh held that multiple arbitrations before different Arbitral Tribunals in respect of the same contract is counterproductive and ought to be avoided. The bench held that it is incumbent on the parties to disclose such information to the court when approaching for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: A tender was floated on 31st January 2014 by the...