Amazon - Future Group Arbitration- Delhi High Court Dismisses Future's Application Being Interlocutory

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd., challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal allowing Amazon's application for amendment of Claims, seeking repudiatory damages for breach of Agreements executed with Future Coupons. The Court ruled that the said order was interlocutory in nature, and thus, it is not amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court added that Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration...

Challenge Under Section 17 Of The SARFAESI Act Against Action Taken By Secured Creditor, Would Not Bar Arbitration Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that arbitration proceedings and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) can go hand in hand. The single bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that even if a party intended to take action under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by filing a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), to challenge the action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13...

Acceptance Of Goods Does Not Constitute Acceptance To Arbitration Clause, Unilaterally Included In Delivery Challan: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that unilaterally including a clause in the Delivery Challan would not constitute an arbitration agreement between the parties merely because the opposite party had accepted the delivery of goods and had signed the Delivery Challan certifying the acceptance of goods. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that in order to constitute an arbitration agreement, there must be a consensus between the parties. Therefore, the Court ruled that...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13 November To 19 November, 2022

Delhi High Court: Invalidity Of The Appointment Procedure Would Not Render The Entire Arbitration Clause Invalid: Delhi High Court Case Title: Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. versus NTPC The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the procedure for the appointment of the arbitrator has become invalid due to 2015 amendment act, the same would not render the entire arbitration clause invalid. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that there are...

Non-Participation Of Defendant Is Good For Compliance Of Sec 12-A Of The Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the failure of the defendant to participate in the Pre-Institution Mediation suffice the requirement of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the consent of the plaintiff for instituting the pre-suit meditation would be irrelevant if the defendant refuses to participate to take part in the proceedings. The Court held that the only requirement for...

Extension Of Limitation For Section 34 Application, Is Not Contingent On Merits Of Section 33 Application: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the benefit of extension of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), by virtue of an application filed under Section 33, for correction and interpretation of award, would not apply solely to the parties making the request under Section 33. The single bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that the issue whether the limitation for filing a Section 34 application would run from the...

Invalidity Of The Appointment Procedure Would Not Render The Entire Arbitration Clause Invalid: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the procedure for the appointment of the arbitrator has become invalid due to 2015 amendment act, the same would not render the entire arbitration clause invalid. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that there are several elements present in an arbitration clause such as procedure for appointment of arbitrator, law of arbitration, law of contract, seat and venue, etc., however, the core element remains the consent of the...

Arbitration Survives Even If Arbitration Under MSMED Act Declared Non-Maintainable: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that once a dispute is referred to the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), if the Facilitation Council adjudicates the dispute on merits, such decision would operate as res judicata and would bar the institution of arbitral proceedings in respect of the same dispute. However, the Court held that if the Facilitation Council declines to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the petition...

Section 12(5) Of A&C Act Applies To Proceedings Commenced Before Or After The 2015 Amendment: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that Section 12(5) that provides for grounds of ineligibility of arbitrator would apply regardless whether the notice of arbitration was given before or after the 2015 amendment came into force provided that the appointment was made on a date Section 12(5) was in force. The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that in view of Section 12, independence and impartiality of arbitrator is a continuing requirement and any ineligible person acting as...

Sec.19 Of MSMED Act Applies To All Kinds Of Challenges : Gujarat High Court

The High Court of Gujarat has held that Section 19 of MSMED Act, which provides for 75% deposit of the awarded amount as a pre-condition to challenging any order, award or decree passed in favour of the supplier, applies to all challenge applications regardless of whether the decree, award, order was passed by MSME Council, independent arbitration or the Court. The bench of Justice Umesh A. Trivedi has held if Section 19 of the Act is made applicable only to the award passed by the...

Doctrine Of Group Of Companies, Can't Implead Third Party To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Doctrine of Group of Companies cannot be applied to implead a non-signatory third party to arbitration, in a dispute arising between partners relating to the partnership business. The Court held that partnership in its very nature cannot be equated with a company to invoke the Doctrine of Group of Companies. The Single Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that if allegations raised against a party contain a criminal aspect of fraud, forgery or...

Period Of Limitation For The Appointment Of Substitute Arbitrator Begins On The Date Of His Recusal/Removal, Date Of Knowledge Is Irrelevant: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the period of limitation for appointing a substitute arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the A&C Act commences on the date of recusal/removal of the arbitrator and the date on which the fact of his removal/recusal comes to the knowledge of a party is irrelevant for the purpose of limitation. The bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that since Section 15 of the A&C Act does not contain any provision of limitation, therefore, the period of ...