ARBITRATION
Settlement With Concessionaire Doesn't Erase NHAI's Role In Dispute: Delhi High Court Dismisses Substitution Petition
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting the plea of National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) to substitute itself with a special purpose vehicle (SPV) in an ongoing arbitration initiated by CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (CFM ARC). The court held that the substitution could prejudice claimants' rights and that court's intervention under Article under 227 of the Indian Constitution is permitted only in exceptional rarity. Justice...
Power To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Lies With Civil Court Of Original Jurisdiction, Not Appointing Court: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Employees State Insurance (ESI) Corporation. ESI had challenged an order passed by the Civil Court allowing the application seeking extension of the arbitrator's mandate. Justice P. Sam Koshy held that the mandate of the arbitrator under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be extended by the court as defined under section 2(1)(e) which expressly included the city civil ...
Arbitration | Unconditional Stay On Execution Of Award Only In Exceptional Cases: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently declined to grant an unconditional stay on the execution of the arbitral award, holding that the requirement to deposit the security amount was justified since the award was not shown to have been induced or tainted by fraud or corruption. Referring to its latest ruling in Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Another v. Amazon Technologies Inc., a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan reiterated that for the grant of an unconditional stay on the execution of an...
'Sum' U/S 31(7)(b) A&C Act Excludes Pendente Lite Interest Unless Expressly Included: Delhi High Court In Award Execution Plea Against BSNL
The Delhi High Court held that if pre-award or pendente lite interest is not added to the principal amount in an arbitral award or on appeal, then post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) cannot be charged on it.Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the decree-holder's contention that the Supreme Court's use of the phrase 'statutory interest' entitled it to post-award interest on both principal and pendente lite interest. An arbitral award dated 26.09.2000 directed BSNL to pay over INR 6.07...
Indian Courts Have No Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator For Foreign-Seated Arbitration : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday (November 21) dismissed a plea seeking the appointment of an arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration, holding that once the principal contract is governed by foreign law and provides for a foreign-seated arbitration, Indian courts lose jurisdiction, irrespective of the Indian nationality of any party. “Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration, irrespective of the nationality or domicile of the...
Arbitrator Is The Master of Evidence; Court In Appeal Cannot Reassess Facts: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently reiterated that an arbitrator is the master of both the quantity and quality of evidence, and therefore the court, while exercising appeal or supervisory jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate factual findings recorded in an arbitral award. The court emphasized that it does not sit as a court of appeal over the findings of the learned Arbitrator and its role under Section 34 is 'restrictive jurisdiction' and it cannot travel beyond the four corners of it. A...
Dispute Over Property Used Exclusively For Trade Constitutes Commercial Dispute Even If Situated In Residential Area: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that a dispute arising from a lease agreement under which premises were used actually used for running a retail showroom qualifies as a commercial dispute under section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 even if the property is situated in a residential zone under the Municipal Law. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar set aside the Patiala Court's decision of returning the plaint on the ground that...
Order Refusing To Terminate Arbitration Is Not An Interim Award: Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge U/S 34 A&C Act
The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) challenging an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by which it had refused to terminate the ongoing proceedings holding that the order was merely a prima facie view, interlocutory one and not an arbitral award capable of being challenged. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that a company's invocation of arbitration cannot be treated as non est merely because it...
Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Rewrite Executed Contract Using Internal Notings: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Award Against Konkan Railway
The Bombay High Court set aside a majority arbitral award that had directed Konkan Railway to bear Royalty Charges for earth used in a Madhya Pradesh project holding that the arbitral tribunal acted in contravention of the contractual terms and committed patent illegality by relying on internal tender committee minutes to infer a different intention of the parties. Justice R.I. Chagla held that once the contract placed royalty liability on the contractor, the tribunal could not rewrite...
Arbitration | Dispute On Interest Rate Doesn't Fall Under Public Policy Ground To Set Aside Award Ordinarily: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 18) upheld the charging of a 24% interest rate in an arbitral award, stating that an interest rate agreed upon in a commercial loan agreement did not violate the fundamental policy of Indian law. “It is well-settled that fundamental policy of Indian law does not refer to violation of any Statue but fundamental principles on which Indian law is founded. Any difference or controversy as to rate of interest clearly falls outside the scope of challenge on...
Multiple Remand Orders U/S 37 A&C Act “Unworkable” Without Reversing Findings On Merits: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that multiple remand orders issued by courts under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) without disturbing or reversing the findings on merits recorded by earlier Single Judges were incapable of implementation. The court found the situation unprecedented and unusual holding that the statutory scheme of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not permit a wholesale de novo remand unless the appellate court first reverses the...