Exclusive Supervisory Jurisdiction Granted To Court Receiving First Application Under Arbitration Act, Bombay HC Limits Territorial Jurisdiction

The Bombay High Court bench comprising Justice Neela Gokhale held that in cases where an application has been made in a court concerning an arbitration agreement, that court alone possesses jurisdiction over an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Further, the bench held that even in agreements where no specific seat is mentioned, multiple courts may potentially have jurisdiction, depending on where a part of the cause...

Claims Related To Company Are Arbitrable Even Though It Is Non-Signatory To Arbitration Agreement, Delhi High Court Reinforces GOC Doctrine

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Pratibha M. Singh held that the disagreements related to the partners' business activities, whether conducted through the firm or the company, fall within the scope of arbitrable matters. The bench rejected the argument that the firm or the company cannot be brought forth in the arbitration proceedings since neither the firm nor the company are signatories to the arbitration agreement. It referred to the Supreme Court decision in Cox and Kings...

Limitation Period For Arbitration Decided By Arbitral Tribunals, Not By Courts: Telangana High Court Allows Section 11(6)(a) Application

The Telangana High Court bench comprising Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy held that the question of whether a claim is barred by limitation time is to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Further, the bench noted that the scope of Section 11(6) in conjunction with Section 11(9) is confined to the appointment of an arbitrator based on the existence of an arbitration agreement and not to examine the merits of the case. ...

Arbitration Act| Debatable Questions Of Fact Cannot Be Decided In Proceedings U/ S 11(6): Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the scope of judicial review in proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is very narrow. The Court held that debatable questions of fact cannot be gone into by the Court while adjudicating an application for appointment of arbitrator. “The rival contentions regarding arbitrability, in my view, cannot be decided in the instant proceedings. Its adjudication requires appreciation of evidence. The scope of...

Limited Judicial Intervention U/s 8 And 11 Of Arbitration Act, Presumption In Favor Of Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Krishna Rao held that while interpreting the arbitration agreements, the courts should have a presumption in favour of arbitration of the dispute and the court could only interfere if the party shows prima facie non-existence of valid arbitration agreement. It held that Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 give the arbitrator or the tribunal the primary authority to determine the questions of non-arbitrability of...

Arbitral Award Under MSMED Act Must Be Challenged Under S 19 Of MSME Act Read With S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an arbitral award passed in a reference made under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 must be challenged as per provisions of Section 19 of the MSMED Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 19 of the MSMED Act provides that any application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing...

Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Permits Petitioner To Avail Remedy Under S. 37 Of Arbitration Act

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the aggrieved party should avail the alternate remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before approaching the court under Article 226 unless there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. Further, the bench held that the remedy available to a party under Article 226 is not absolute and is at the discretion of the High Court. Brief Facts: A finance company (“Respondent), filed...

Arbitrator Taking A Different View Is Not A Ground To Set Aside Award: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench comprising Justice M.G. Priyadarsini held that the scope of setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 is very limited and can only be set aside if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and there is perversity in the award. Further, it held that the courts should not interfere with the arbitral awards merely because a different view has been taken by the arbitrator based on the evidence and...

'Finality Of Decision And Non-Arbitrability' Clause In GCC Does Not Imply An Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has rejected a construction company's claim that the dispute resolution clause in the General Conditions of Contract with Mumbai Municipal Corporation constituted a valid arbitration agreement due to a lack of mutual intention to arbitrate.s The court pointed out that the title "Finality of Decision and Non-Arbitrability" of the clause clearly indicates the parties did not intend for it to serve as an arbitration agreement. The bench of Justice Firdosh P....

Arbitration Weekly Round Up: 22nd January to 28th January 2024

Allahabad High Court Reduction Of Interest Is Nothing But Modification Of Original Arbitration Award: Allahabad High Court Quashes Section 34 Order Case Title: Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 44 The Allahabad High Court has held that the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not have the power to modify an award. The Court held that though parts of an award can be severed...

Mere Reference Of Dispute To Arbitration Does Not Preclude The High Court From Examining Issue Of Stamp Duty In A Writ Petition: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has allowed a writ petition enabling the petitioner to approach the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to adjudicate/decide on the amount payable on the instrument despite the reference of the dispute arising out of the instrument to arbitration under Section 8 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that merely because the arbitral tribunal is empowered to carry out the same exercise, it cannot deprive the High Court from entertaining a...

Group Of Companies Doctrine Cannot Be Applied To Directors Of A Company To Make Them A Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that directors of a company cannot be made parties to arbitration through 'Group of Companies' doctrine. It held that the relationship between the company and its director(s) is that of the 'Principal' and 'Agent' as defined under Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act. The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that in terms of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, the agent cannot be made personally liable for acts carried out on behalf of the ...