Rajasthan High Court Declares GAFTA London Award Enforceable As Decree; Reiterates Narrow Scope Of “Public Policy” U/S 48 Arbitration Act

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed objections against the enforcement of a foreign award raised by Raj Grow Impex LLP stating that the scope of interference is extremely narrow at the enforcement stage and that an award holder having won before both the tribunal and appellate tribunals should not be left to feel that he has won the battle but lost the war. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that “since this Court in the scope of Section 48 is not entitled to examine merits of the foreign...

Court May Direct Deposit Of 100% Of Awarded Amount Before Granting Stay U/S 36(3) Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court held that directing a 100% deposit of the awarded amount as a pre-condition for granting stay under section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) is legally valid and consistent with the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi held that “where the arbitral award is in the nature of a money decree, a direction to deposit 100% of the awarded sum is neither punitive nor excessive but serves to secure the...

Limitation Commences When Award Is Received By Authority Competent To Decide On Challenging It U/S 34 A&C Act: Manipur High Court

The Manipur High Court held that in abitration cases, in case of government entities, the limitation period commences from the date when the award is received by the person who is competent to take decision on whether to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and not merely when the award is emailed or received by the counsel. A bench of Chief Justice Mr. M. Sundar and Mr. Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma held that “In cases of Government,...

Filing Certified Copy Of Arbitration Agreement Not Mandatory When Undisputed Agreement Is Already On Record: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court held that an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be rejected merely on the ground that a certified copy of the agreement was not produced along with it when the same agreement containing the arbitration clause is already on the record and undisputed between the parties. Justice Maulik J. Shelat held that “Merely because a certified copy of the arbitration agreement was not filed would not render the...

Courts Not Expressly Barred From Dismissing Petitions Under Arbitration Act For Non-Prosecution: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court held that negligence or inaction on the part of counsel cannot justify condonation of unexplained and long delay. The court further held that the court is not prohibited from dismissing the petitions under section 34 for non prosecution. Justice Maulik J. Shelat held that “there is no express bar under the Act, 1996 not to dismiss such applications for non-prosecution. True, Section 19 of the Act, 1996 would suggests that Arbitration Tribunal not bound by the...

Order Terminating Proceedings For Non-Payment Of Arbitral Fees Can Be Challenged U/S 14 A&C Act, Not Through Writ Petition: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court held that when the arbitration proceedings are terminated under section 38(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for non-payment of arbitral fees, the proper remedy is to file application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act and not a writ petition. Justice Manish Pitale held that “in situations where the arbitral proceedings are terminated, a remedy of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is evidently not available and there appears...

Compensation U/S 3G National Highways Act Can Be Challenged Under Arbitration Act, Writ Petition Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that compensation awarded under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 can be challenged under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and writ petitions for the same will not be maintainable.A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held“Section 3G(6) of the Act, 1956 expressly provides that the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996 shall apply to proceedings under Section 3G. This creates a complete statutory scheme...

When Two Or More Courts Have Jurisdiction, Parties' Choice Of Court Prevails Even If Cause Of Action Arises Elsewhere: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that when parties to a contract have agreed to exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court, suit instituted in other courts is not maintainable even if the cause of action has arisen in other jurisdiction. Setting aside the interim injunction granted by the commercial court at Bengaluru, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that the Debenture Trust Deed (DTD) clearly conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a...

Even Non-Signatory Family Members Are Bound By Consent Award Executed By Heads Of Family: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court held that once heads of two families amicably resolve disputes through composite family arrangement and a consent arbitral award, individual family members cannot later challenge the award even if they were non-signatories on grounds of non-receipt of a signed copy of the award or lack of individual consent. A bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray held that family arrangements if executed bona fide and voluntarily are binding on all...

Bombay High Court Directs WhiteHat Jr To Secure Rs 80.35 Lakh Arbitral Award In Favor Of Former Employee

The Bombay High Court has recently ordered WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt. Ltd. (popularly known as WhiteHat Jr), a subsidiary of embattled ed-tech Byju's, to secure an arbitration award of Rs 80.35 lakh in favour of its former employee, Prashant Singh.The award was granted in an employment dispute following Singh's sudden termination from the company. The Court also directed the company's directors, Byju Raveendran and Riju Raveendran, to comply with the order.A Single bench of Justice...

Proceedings Can Be Terminated U/S 32(2)(C) Of A&C Act When Underlying Contract Is Unenforceable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award terminating proceedings under section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) on the ground that an agreement to sell (ATS) between the parties was unforceable for being unregistered and unstamped under Uttar Pradesh law. Justice Amit Bansal held that an agreement concerning transfer of sub-leasedhold rights in immovable property situated in Uttar Pradesh constituted a contract of sale under the section 54 ...

Terminating Arbitrator's Mandate Over Mere Allegations Of Corruption Would Set Dangerous Precedent: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that mere allegations of corruption or pendency of an unverified complaint against an arbitrator cannot justify termination of arbitrator's mandate under section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Justice Jyoti Singh held that “mandate of an Arbitrator cannot be terminated solely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations or mere complaints.. De jure ineligibility is an inherent disability and mere allegations cannot meet this...