Well Reasoned Interim Order Of Arbitral Tribunal, Courts Should Not Interfere Under Section 37 Of The A&C Act : Delhi HC

The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court under Section 37 of the A&C Act should not interfere with a reasoned order of the tribunal granting interim relief based on thorough examination of the matter. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta reiterated that as long as the arbitral tribunal has granted the interim relief to protect and preserve the subject matter of arbitration and balances the equities between the parties on consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience...

Court Under Section 29A Of The A&C Act Would Not Consider Issue Regarding Fees Of Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held the Court exercising power under Section 29A of the A&C Act, which provides for extension of time to conclude arbitral proceedings, is only concerned with the issue as to whether the arbitrator has acted with expedition in the matter and would not consider any issue regarding the conduct of the arbitration or the fees of the arbitral tribunal as they are not relevant for the purpose of the said Section. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta reaffirmed...

Order Of Executing Court Staying Execution Of Award Under O 21, R 26 CPC Is Within Jurisdiction: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that there is no specific provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as regard execution or stay of an arbitral award. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court who stayed the execution of the award by resorting to Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was within its jurisdiction, the court held. The bench of Justice W. Diengdoh observed that the Executing Court had passed the order to enable...

“Counter-Balancing” Not Achieved When 2/3rd Members Of The Arbitral Tribunal To Be Appointed By One Party: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a party is required to appoint an arbitrator from a panel made by the other contracting parties, it is mandatory for the panel to be sufficiently broad based, in conformity with the principle laid down by the top court in Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, (2017) 4 SCC 665. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta made the observation while dealing with a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 3 July To 9 July 2023

Calcutta High Court: Interim Relief Under The A&C Act Obtained Without Disclosing Material Evidence, Calcutta High Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 50 Thousand On Each Petitioner Case Title: Omkar Tradecomm LLP vs Mayank Agarwal The High Court of Calcutta has held that a party approaching the Court for relief must do so with clean hands and is under an obligation to disclose all material facts that have bearing on the adjudication of the issues in the case. The bench of Justice...

Finding Of The Tribunal Regarding The Existence Of The Arbitration Agreement Should Not Be Interfered With Unless It Is Manifestly Clear That There Was No Agreement: Calcutta High Court

The High Court of Calcutta has held the Courts, while exercising powers under Section 48 of the A&C Act, cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its view with that of the arbitral tribunal. It reiterated that the scope of judicial interference at the stage of enforcement of foreign award is limited to the grounds mentioned under Section 48 and the court is only required to make a preliminary determination. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that the views of the...

Order Of Arbitral Tribunal Refusing To Entertain Additional Counter-Claims Filed Without An Application Under Section 23 Is Not An ‘Interim Award’: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal refusing to entertain additional counter-claims filed without making any application under Section 23 of the Act is not an ‘interim award’, therefore, it cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The bench of Justices Najmi Waziri and Sudhir Kumar Jain held that order of the tribunal refusing to entertain additional counter-claims filed without requisite permission/authority of the tribunal is not an...

Indus Water Treaty: Hague Court of Arbitration Says It Is Competent To Decide Proceedings Initiated By Pakistan; India Rejects Ruling

Rejecting India's objections, the Permanent Court Of Arbitration at The Hague has ruled that it is competent to decide the proceedings instituted by Pakistan in relation to the Indus Water Treaty in 2016. Pakistan had approached the court over the design and operation of run-of-river hydro-electric plants on the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab rivers and their tributaries. India had said the Court was not competent to decide the questions placed before it and chosen not to appoint its two arbitrators...

Plea That Claimant’s Claim Cannot Stand In The Absence Of A Third Entity, Can Be Raised Before The Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that the claimant’s claim cannot stand in the absence of a third entity in the arbitral proceedings, is an aspect touching upon the maintainability of the claim(s) sought to be raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. The court said that the said plea can be urged before a duly constituted Arbitration Tribunal and the same cannot preclude the claimant from seeking or invoking Arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement executed between the...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Round-Up: June 2023

High Courts Allahabad High Court: Facilitation Council Which Was The Conciliator Under MSMED Act, Can Arbitrate The Dispute; Bar Contained In S. 80 Of Arbitration Act Not Applicable: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Bata India Limited & Anr. vs U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council & Anr. The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the discretion given to Facilitation Council under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development...

Arbitrator’s Name In “Hall Of Fame” On Website, Claims Denial Of Maximum Number Of INDRP Complaints, A Justifiable Apprehension To His Neutrality: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the inclusion of the arbitrator’s name in the “Hall of Fame” of a website created by him, based upon the fact that he had denied the maximum number of complaints under the “.IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (INDRP), gives rise to a justifiable apprehension as to his neutrality. The court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), challenging the arbitral award passed by the...

‘Works Contract’ Under Bhopal Municipal Corporation, Comes Under Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal . Court Cant Appoint An Arbitrator Under Section 11 Of A&C Act, 1996

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that the court cannot appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) when an overriding remedy is available to the party under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.The bench of Justice Anand Pathak was dealing with an application filed under Section 11 of the A&C Act seeking appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in relation to a works contract.The...