Rajasthan HC Slams “Lethargic” Arbitration In ₹528 HCL–DISCOMs Dispute, Orders Fast-Track Completion

The Rajasthan High Court on 27 May held that arbitral proceedings must remain aligned with the statutory objective of expedition, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that procedural delay cannot justify repeated extensions of an arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A. Justice Sameer Jain, invoking former Chief Justice of India Justice P.N. Bhagwati's observation that “Procedure is but a means to an end, not an end in itself”, partly...

Himachal Pradesh HC Directs Mahindra To Restore DMS Access Of Ex- Authorised Service Centre Pending Arbitration

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted interim relief to Naveen Auto Store Sole Proprietary, a Mahindra-authorised service centre operator, and directed Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. to restore the dealer management system (DMS) access of its workshop. The Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for interim protection pending arbitration proceedings. Justice Romesh Verma observed, “The petitioner has been able to demonstrate on record that huge investment including...

Remedy Against Refusal To Recall Arbitral Termination Lies Under Section 14(2), Not Section 34: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that a party cannot invoke Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge an order refusing to recall termination of arbitral proceedings passed under Section 25, and that the only remedy lies under Section 14(2) of the Act. A Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash dismissed the appeal filed by U.P. Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. against Rivaj Infratech Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Section 34 petition itself was not maintainable. The judges...

Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Limited To Interim Protection, Not Merits: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 26 May held that courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot adjudicate the merits of the underlying dispute while granting interim protection pending arbitration, as their power is confined to preserving the subject matter and granting protective relief. Justice S. Manu allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Vacation Court, holding that it had exceeded the limits of Section 9 jurisdiction by...

“Every Day's Delay” Rule Not Pedantic, Bureaucratic Delay May Be Condoned: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 22 May held that Courts must adopt a common-sense approach while considering delay condonation applications filed by government authorities under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that bureaucratic decision-making processes may constitute sufficient cause where the explanation is bona fide. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi allowed the appeal filed by the State of...

Delhi High Court Refers 'Intertwined' Builder JV, Settlement And Mortgage Deed Disputes To Arbitration Without Fresh Notice

The Delhi High Court has referred to arbitration a fresh round of disputes between Jiangxi Construction Engineering Group Co. Ltd. and Varaha Infra Ltd., holding that claims arising from their joint venture agreements, settlement arrangement, consent arbitral award and mortgage deeds were too closely connected to be separated. Justice Mini Pushkarna appointed former Delhi High Court judge Justice (Retd.) Jayant Nath as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The court...

Courts Must Call For Arbitral Records Before Deciding Challenge To Arbitral Award: Sikkim High Court

The Sikkim High Court has reiterated that a court hearing a challenge to an arbitral award cannot decide the matter without first calling for the records of the arbitral tribunal. A Division Bench of Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed: “The Court entertaining the application under Section 34 is required, imperatively, to look into the records of the Arbitral Tribunal to satisfy whether any grounds under Section 34 have been made out or not. Without...

Unstamped Arbitration Agreement Survives; Objection Must First Be Raised Before Arbitrator: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that non-stamping or insufficient stamping of an agreement does not invalidate it and that the arbitral tribunal must decide such objections in the first instance, discouraging High Court interference in ongoing arbitration proceedings. A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held “The agreement survives non-stamping or insufficient stamping, and the defect can be cured by getting the agreement sufficiently stamped at any stage,...

Winding Up Of Company Will Not Automatically Stay Arbitral Proceedings Against Promoters: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a company's winding up does not automatically halt arbitral proceedings or shield its promoters from contractual obligations undertaken in their personal capacity. Justice T.R. Ravi held, “Sections 278 and 279 of the Companies Act can have operation only with regard to claims against the Company and a winding up order will not automatically operate as a stay of further proceedings before the Arbitrator. ” It added, "The petitioner sought to place reliance on...

Tenancy Disputes Under 2001 Act Non-Arbitrable, Rent Tribunal Has Exclusive Jurisdiction: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court on 22 May held that landlord–tenant disputes governed by the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 are non-arbitrable and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal, even where the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause. A Division Bench of Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Shah, however, set aside the Commercial Court's order and restored the arbitral award in favour of the legal representatives of late Ramesh Chandra Patel against City Pulse...

Supreme Court Refuses To Set Aside “Patently Illegal” Arbitral Award, Modifies Relief Instead

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to set aside an arbitral award despite finding it to be patently illegal, choosing instead to modify the award itself to bring finality to a dispute that has been pending since 2012. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that sending the parties back into fresh litigation would cause further hardship and delay. “Though the award, being patently illegal, deserves to be set aside under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act, we...

Delhi High Court Upholds ₹1.22 Crore Award Against Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation

The Delhi High Court on 21 April dismissed Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation's challenge to a majority arbitral award in favour of contractor Gammon India Ltd in a dispute over escalation payments under a construction contract for a bridge project over the Yamuna river. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the arbitral tribunal's interpretation of the contract was a plausible one and did not warrant interference. DTTDC had entered into the contract with Gammon...