Section 21 Notice Is A Mandatory Pre-Requisite For Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 21 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 21 notice is a mandatory pre-requisite for invoking jurisdiction of the under Section 21 of the A&C Act, The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that a petition under Section 11 of the Act can only be filed when the parties fail to appoint the arbitrator in terms of the procedure agreed upon by the parties and Section 21 is an important element of this procedure as it provides for the request to be made to the other party for...

When There Are Two Interconnected Agreements With Conflicting Arbitration Clauses, The Clause Contained In The Main Agreement Should Be Given Primacy: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that when there are two interconnected agreements with conflicting arbitration clauses, the arbitration clause contained in the main/umbrella agreement should be given primacy over the other clause. The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that when disputes under two connected agreements had different Arbitration Clauses, the disputes should be resolved under the main or umbrella agreement and the seat of arbitration should be determined as per the...

Section 42 Bars Petitions In Different Courts, Fraud Or Collusion Allegations Can Only Be Examined By The First Court: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has decided that if a petition under Section 9 is submitted to any court other than the one where the initial application was made, Section 42 of the A&C Act will prevent it. This section grants exclusive jurisdiction to the first court for arbitration-related cases. First court is basically the court where an arbitration petition is filed at the first instance. Section 42 says that if I have filed an application before the Delhi High Court, any other ...

Court Can Within The Limited Scope Of Judicial Scrutiny Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act, Examine If Claims Are Frivolous Or Meritless: Bombay High Court

The High Court of Bombay has held that despite the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the Court would refuse to appoint the arbitrator when on a prima facie scrutiny of the material on record, it can come to a conclusion that claims sought to be arbitrated are frivolous and meritless. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale refused to appoint an arbitrator when the claims sought to be arbitrated by the petitioner were pre-mature as per the terms of the...

Section 14 Of Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings U/S 34 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which provides for exclusion of time consumed in civil proceedings initiated before a Court not having the jurisdiction, applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh excluded 1239 days spent in prosecuting the petition under Section 34 petition before a Court not having the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court observed that a party prosecuting its case with due...

Though Not Directly Enforceable, Order Of Emergency Arbitrator In A Foreign-Seated Arbitration A Supplemental Factor To Be Considered U/S 9 Petition: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that an order of the Emergency Arbitrator in a foreign-seated arbitration, while not directly enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&C Act) due to the absence of a provision akin to Section 17(2) of the Act in Part II, should nonetheless be considered by the Court as a supplemental factor under Section 9 of the Act. The bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur also held that mere pendency of a petition before the NCLT would not make a...

Court Has Power To Issue Time Bound Directions To Collector Of Stamps To Decide On Unstamped Arbitration Agreements, Purpose Of Section 11(13) Of A&C Act Should Not Be Defeated: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act has the power to issue time bound directions to Collector of Stamps to decide on unstamped arbitration agreements to ensure that the mandate of Section 11(13) of the A&C Act that provides for expeditious disposal of Section 11 petition should not be defeated. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta gave much needed clarity on several important questions of law that arose in view of the...

Sending Scanned Copy Of A Signed Arbitral Award Through Email Constitutes A Valid Delivery Under Section 31(5) Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an email sent by the arbitral tribunal to the parties wherein the scanned copy of the signed award is attached constitutes a valid delivery of the award under Section 31(5) of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the period of limitation for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act would commence on the date of the subject email and the fact that the award was physically collected on a later date is...

Section 34 Petition Filed Without Impugned Award And Statement Of Truth Is Non-Est: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a Section 34 petition filed unaccompanied by the impugned award and without the statement of truth would not constitute a valid filing. The Court observed that the petition as originally filed was without the impugned award and statement of truth and constituted of only 46 pages, however, the refiled version ran into 1785 pages which included the impugned award, therefore, the original filing would be non-est. The bench of Justice Mini...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 21 to 27 August 2023

Supreme Court: Supreme Court Restores 1997 Arbitral Award Passed Under 1940 Act; Criticises HC & Trial Court For “Appellate Review” Case Title: M/s S.D. Shinde vs Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. The Supreme Court, while restoring an arbitral award passed in 1997 which was set aside by the Trial Court and the High Court under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, has emphasised that the court’s jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act never extended beyond discerning...

Holistic, Common-Sense Approach Required To Interpret Arbitration Clause: Calcutta HC Grants Interim Relief To US-Based Healthcare Company

The Calcutta High Court while exercising its admiralty jurisdiction, recently allowed an application for interim relief by Uphealth Holdings Inc. a wholly owned subsidiary of Uphealth Inc., a US-based healthcare company under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur observed that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for interim relief regarding an arbitrable dispute over its Share-Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) with the respondent."There is no...

'Such Dead Claim Ought Not To Be Revived': Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application For Appointment Of Arbitrator Filed After 20 Yrs

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 holding that such application being filed after 20 years of occurrence of dispute is bared by delay and laches. Noting that an arbitration clause existed in the agreement between the parties, Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra held “What is, however, admitted on record is that a dispute did occur between the parties in the year 2000....