Party Agreeing To Constitute Arbitral Tribunal Forfeits Right To Oppose Appointment Based On Non-Fulfilment Of Pre-Arbitral Process: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that once a party has agreed to constituting an arbitral tribunal, it is precluded from subsequently opposing the appointment of an arbitrator based on the alleged non-fulfillment of pre-arbitral steps. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a tender process initiated by the Respondents for the "Manufacturing and Supply of Metal liner for wider sleeper." The Surya Alloy Industires Ltd.'s (“Petitioner”) bid was accepted by...

Can't Raise Objections U/S 47 Of CPC In Execution Proceedings For The Enforcement Of Award, S. 34 Of A&C Must Be Availed: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Alok Mathur held that the objections under Section 47 of the CPC are not maintainable in execution proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitration award. It held that an arbitration award, not being issued by a "court," falls outside the definition of a decree as outlined in Section 2(2) of CPC. Moreover, once the award attains finality, any objections must be raised exclusively in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. ...

Can't Challenge Award U/s 34 Of A&C Act If Arbitral Tribunal's Composition Aligns With The Agreement, Even If Part I Stands Violated: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice M.G. Priyadarsini held that as long as the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure aligns with the agreement between the parties, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not allow a challenge to an award solely on the basis that the composition of the arbitral tribunal conflicts with the provisions of Part I of the Act. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a contract between Respondent...

Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 12th February to 18th February 2024

Delhi High Court Allegation of Bias Can't Be Raised After Award Has Been Passed Under S. 31, Delhi High Court Dismisses S. 34 Application Case Title: Allied-Dynamic Joint Venture vs Ircon International Ltd, Delhi The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that objections regarding bias against an arbitrator, as outlined in Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be raised after the arbitrator has rendered a decision under...

Arbitration Clause Is Not Void U/S 29 Of Contact Act, For Stipulating Multiple Choices Of Seats; Delhi High Court Allows Section 11 Petition

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if an arbitration agreement stipulates multiple seats of arbitration, thereby, offering a choice to the parties is not void under Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 declares agreements uncertain in meaning or incapable of being made certain as void. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a Purchase Order between Vedanta Limited (“Petitioner”) and Shreeji Shipping (“Respondent”) for the transportation of coal...

Issuance Of 'No Claim Certificate' Does Not Prima-Facie Make Dispute Non-Arbitrable, Gujarat High Court Allows S. 11 Application

The High Court of Gujarat single bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal allowed a Section 11 application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. It refuted the contention of the Respondent that the dispute had become non-arbitrable because the Petitioner had issued a 'No Claim Certificate' earlier, making the dispute 'stale' in nature. The bench reiterated that it could only carry on a prima-facie assessment as a general rule of law and the...

Can't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction To Challenge Award Under MSME Act, Without Availing Remedy U/S 34 Of A&C Act; Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of the Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that a party cannot file a writ petition under Article 226/227 challenging the arbitration award under Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 without taking recourse to a statutory remedy for challenging an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench noted that recourse is subjected to the requirement of pre-deposit of...

Prima Facie Proof Needed To Interpret S. 8 Invocation, M.P High Court Applies Prima Facie Approach, Dismisses Revision Based On Lack Of Proof

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench comprising Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal dismissed a revision petition seeking to invoke Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 based on a dispute related to the transfer of cheques under a partnership deed. The arbitration clause in the deed was about disputes arising between the parties, touching the firm's business or interpretation of any subsequent provisions relating to the firm and its business. The High Court noted there was no...

Arbitration Can't Be Inferred From Parties' Conduct Alone, Calcutta High Court Dismisses S. 8 Application Due To Non-Renewal Of Original Agreement

The High Court of Calcutta bench comprising Justice Sugato Majumdar adjudicated on a matter involving a civil suit for possession of premises from the tenants and an application made under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the tenants seeking to refer the dispute to arbitration based on the tenancy agreement which had expired a few years ago and was not novated or renewed. The High Court emphasized that while the tenancy may be established by conduct, arbitration...

Arbitration Agreement Valid Even If It Refers To Arbitration Act, 1940 As Applicable Law: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice HP Sandesh held that even if an arbitration agreement erroneously refers to the 1940 Act after the enactment of the 1996 Act, it does not render the agreement invalid. It held that arbitral proceedings initiated under it before the enactment of the 1996 Act could continue under the old Act unless the parties agreed otherwise. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a Hire Purchase Agreement signed between M/s. ICDS Ltd. (“Appellant”) as...

MSME Facilitation Council Can't Refer Enterprises To Arbitration For Contracts They Signed Before Registration Under MSME Act: Delhi H.C.

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prateek Jalan held that registration under the MSME Act is a prerequisite for availing its benefits, and such benefits cannot be claimed retrospectively for contracts entered into before registration. The bench held that the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council doesn't have the power to entertain the dispute under Section 18 of the MSME Act for the claims which arose before registration. Therefore, the Council was not empowered to ...

Absence Of Term “Seat” In Arbitration Clause, Exclusive Jurisdiction Can Be Derived From Intention Of Parties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 11(6) Application

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the intention of the parties to grant exclusive jurisdiction can be derived from the language of the arbitration clause even in the absence of the usage of the term “seat” in the arbitration clause. The bench held that if there is an agreement explicitly or impliedly stating a seat of arbitration, the exclusive jurisdiction is upon the court of the seat to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and...