12 Months Time Limit Under Section 29A Arbitration Act Not Applicable To International Commercial Arbitration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the time limit of twelve months as prescribed in Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable for international commercial arbitration."In terms of the amended provisions of Section 29A, arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are only expected to make an endeavor to complete the proceedings within twelve months from the date of competition of pleadings and are not bound to abide by the time limit prescribed for domestic...

‘Limitation’ Doesn’t Involve Any “Basic Notions Of Morality Or Justice”, For Setting Aside Award : Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the ground of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, can never be a ground which would involve any “basic notions of morality or justice” for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Court reckoned that the arbitral tribunal had concluded that the claims raised by the claimant were not barred by limitation, by recording a finding of fact that there was a running...

Wrong Application Of Law Not Leading To Perversity; Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely because the arbitrator had wrongly applied the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP Policy), while adjudication a dispute over domain names under the said Policy, the award cannot be set aside in the absence of perversity. The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ruled that the terminology used by the arbitrator in the award, that the party had failed to prove its claim “beyond doubt”, cannot be equated with the legal term ‘beyond...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 8 January to 14 January 2022

Supreme Court: Starting Point Of Limitation U/ Section 34(3) Arbitration Act In Cases Of Suo Motu Correction Of Award: Supreme Court Explains Case Title: USS Alliance versus State of Uttar Pradesh The Supreme Court has observed that the starting point for the limitation under Section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the party. Once the...

Drafting Of An Arbitration Agreement – Key Checkpoints

The importance of well – drafted agreements cannot be overstated, more so in the case of Arbitration agreements which are often drafted without much thought and care, infamously referred to as mid – night clauses as they are often reviewed last moment before signing a contract. A one – size fits all approach can pose significant problems and increase time, cost and complexity of the dispute to be adjudicated upon and result counterproductive to say the least. This article attempts to shed...

Award Against Guarantor Who Is Not Member Of Multi State Co-Op Society, Without Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has set aside an award passed pursuant to an arbitral reference made under Section 84(1) of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act), since the award debtor was not a member of the Co-operative Society. The bench of Justice Manish Pitale ruled that a dispute, which is not covered under Section 84 (1) of the MSCS Act, would not be capable of being referred to arbitration. Thus, the Court concluded that the arbitral award was rendered without...

Dispute Whether Partner Can Use Firm’s Trade Mark For His Own Sole Proprietorship, Can Be Referred To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that disputes relating to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem are arbitrable. Thus, the bench of Justice Navin Chawla concluded that the dispute whether a partner can use the partnership firm’s trade mark for his own sole proprietorship concern, can be referred to arbitration. The Court further ruled that merely because a Statute specifies which Civil Court is to adjudicate a dispute, is not enough to infer the implicit...

Section 34 Application Does Not Cease To Be An Application Only Because Procedural Requirements Were Not Complied: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) does not cease to be an application merely because the applicant has not complied with certain procedural requirements. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that filing an affidavit in support of an application and the statement of truth by way of an affidavit, are procedural requirements. In absence...

Court Has No Jurisdiction To Review Order Passed Under Section 11 of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that orders passed in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C) cannot be reviewed since there is no provision of review contained in the A&C Act. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing a review petition filed against the arbitral reference made under Section 11, held that in view of the decision of Apex Court in M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt Ltd versus Hero Fincorp Ltd. ...

Starting Point Of Limitation U/Section 34(3) Arbitration Act In Cases Of Suo Motu Correction Of Award : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court observed that the starting point for the limitation under Section 34(3) Arbitration and Concliation Act, in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the party.Once the arbitral award has been amended or corrected, it is the corrected award which has to be challenged and not the original award, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh observed. In this case, the...

Arbitration Under MSMED Act For Supplies Made Prior To Registration, Void-ab-initio: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that arbitral proceedings initiated under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) relating to the services provided by the claimant before its registration under the MSMED Act, are void-ab-initio. The bench of Dr. Justice A. P. Thaker held that for initiation of proceedings like conciliation and arbitration under the MSMED Act, it is necessary that such firm/supplier is registered under the MSMED Act during the relevant...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 1 January to 7 January 2022

Bombay High Court: Dispute Between Service Providers Can’t Be Referred to Arbitration: Bombay High Court Case Title: World Phone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. versus One OTT Intertainment Ltd. In Centre The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act) is a self-contained Code, intended to deal with all disputes arising out of the Telecommunication Services provided in the country and therefore, the dispute between service providers...