Non-Mentioning Of Prayer Renders The Petition Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act As Invalid: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that non-mentioning of prayer renders the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act as invalid. The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that without a prayer to set aside the impugned award, a petition cannot be considered valid as such petitions would merely amount to empty submissions without a relief. The Court held that without a prayer, the Court cannot decipher the relief that a party is seeking on the basis of...

Under Section 34(3) Of The A&C Act, The Limitation Period Of 3 Months Plus 30 Days In Inelastic And Inflexible: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The High Court of Delhi has held that under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, the limitation period of 3 months plus 30 days in inelastic and inflexible. The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna explained that the challenge petition must be filed within 3 months from the date of the receiving of the award, however, a grace period of 30 days is given in which the Court can exercise discretion to condone the delay in the filing of the application. However, the...

Section 34 Petition Is Non-Est If Filed Without The Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that non-filing of the arbitral award along with the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act is a fatal defect which renders the filing as non-est. The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that filing of an award along with the challenge petition is not an empty procedural requirement as sans the award, the Court is left absolutely clueless to comprehend the grounds taken in the objection Petition and thereby unable to...

Annual Digest of Arbitration Cases 2023- Supreme Court And High Courts (Part-1)

Supreme Court Arbitration Clauses In Unstamped Agreements Enforceable : Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench Overrules 'NN Global' Decision Case Title: In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899 Curative Pet(C) No. 44/2023 In R.P.(C) No. 704/2021 In C.A. No. 1599/2020 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049 A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 13) ruled that arbitration clauses in...

Claim Arising Out Of Arbitral Award Against Which Section 34 Proceedings Are Pending, NCLT Kolkata Upholds RP's Decision To Admit Claim Contingently

The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”), Kolkata Bench, comprising of Shri Rohit Kapoor (Judicial Member) and Shri Balraj Joshi (Technical Member), has upheld the Resolution Professional's decision to admit claim arising out of an arbitral Award as contingent claim, since proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are pending before the High Court against the Award. Background Facts Proton Steels Limited (“Applicant”) entered into a contract with...

Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Modified Under Sections 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court

While deciding on a plea whether there is a scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled position of law that any attempt to “modify an award” while adjudicating Sections 34 and 37 petitions is not permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The Division Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol while deciding a Civil Appeal filed by...

Arbitration Monthly Round-Up: December 2023

Supreme Court Arbitration Clauses In Unstamped Agreements Enforceable : Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench Overrules 'NN Global' Decision Case Title: In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899 Curative Pet(C) No. 44/2023 In R.P.(C) No. 704/2021 In C.A. No. 1599/2020 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049 A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 13) ruled that arbitration clauses in...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 25th December to 31st December

Bombay High Court Debt Owed To Financial Institutions Under SARFAESI Is Arbitrable, Not Debt Under RDDB Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Tata Motors Finance Solutions Ltd v. Naushad Khan, Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 8654 of 2022 The High Court of Bombay has held that a debt owed to a financial institution covered only under the SARFAESI Act is arbitrable, however, a debt owed to a financial institution to which the provisions of RDDB Act also applies is ...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2023 On Arbitration

12 months' time limit under Section 29A Arbitration Act not applicable to international commercial arbitration. TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39 : 2023 INSC 13 : (2023) 5 SCC 4212015 Arbitration Amendment not applicable though S.11 application was filed after it, if arbitration notice was issued pre-amendment. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 417 : 2023 INSC 508: AIR 2023 SC 3554 : (2023)...

Dispute Can't Be Referred To Arbitration By One Partner Of The Firm In Absence Of The Others: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that a dispute related to the business of the firm cannot be referred to arbitration by a partner in absence of other partners. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale held that the implied authority granted to a partner does not extend to referring the dispute to arbitration in view of the bar under Section 19(2)(a) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The Court also held that an arbitration notice issued by one of the partners without the consent of the ...

Arbitrator Can't Allow Damages, For Breach Of MoU To Enter Into Agreement, With No Liability Clause: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal lacks the authority to grant damages for a breach of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), particularly when the MoU serves as a preliminary agreement to enter into a definitive contract. This is especially significant when the MoU entails no financial implications and includes a clause explicitly preventing any monetary liability for a breach. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri's bench emphasized that damages cannot be awarded for a breach...

Signed Arbitral Award Served On Lawyer Or Agent Of The Party Doesn't Constitute A Valid Delivery : Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that a copy of the signed arbitral award served only on the lawyer or the agent of the party does not constitute a valid delivery in absence of the delivery on the party itself. The bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that the term 'party' under Section 31(5) of the Act refers to the actual entity who executed the arbitration agreement, excluding agents or lawyers representing the party. Facts The dispute at hand arose...