Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 9 October To 15 October, 2022

Delhi High Court: Period Of Limitation For Referring The Dispute To Arbitration Commences Only After The Failure Of Pre-Arbitration Mechanism: Delhi High Court Case Title: Welspun Enterprises Ltd. versus NCC Ltd. The High Court of Delhi has held that the period of limitation for referring the dispute to arbitration would only commence after the internal dispute resolution mechanism fails. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that if the agreement between the...

Place Of Arbitration Would Not Become The 'Seat' When The Exclusive Jurisdiction Is Conferred On A Court At A Different Place: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi held that place of arbitration would not become the seat of arbitration when the parties have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on a Court other than the seat Court. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that conferring exclusive jurisdiction, over a Court different from the Court at the place of arbitration, would be a contrary indicia and the place of arbitration would merely be the venue and only the Court at which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred...

Period Of Limitation For Referring The Dispute To Arbitration Commences Only After The Failure Of Pre-Arbitration Mechanism: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the period of limitation for referring the dispute to arbitration would only commence after the internal dispute resolution mechanism fails. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that if the agreement between the parties provides for a pre-arbitration dispute resolution mechanism, a party cannot be expected to invoke arbitration unless the said mechanism fails, therefore, the limitation period cannot start prior to that. ...

Whether A Claim Is A 'Notified Claim' Under The Contract, Falls Outside The Scope Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the dispute whether a claim raised by a party is a 'Notified Claim' under the Contract, which can be referred to arbitration as per the arbitration clause, falls outside the scope of arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru observed that as per the arbitration clause contained in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), only disputes arising out of 'Notified Claims', as included in the Final Bill issued by the claimant, could be referred...

Execution Of Arbitral Award Is To Be Filed In The Seat Court And Not At The Place Of Land Acquired: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that execution of an arbitral award passed under the NHAI Act is to be filed at the Seat Court and not where the acquired land is situated. The bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh held that once the seat of arbitral proceeding is fixed then only the court within whose jurisdiction the seat is situated would have the jurisdiction to decide all the applications arising out of the arbitration. The Court held that Section 42 of the A&C Act...

Use Of The Word 'Can' In An Arbitration Clause Does Not Render It Ineffective, Intention To Be Looked Into: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that mere use of the word 'can' in an arbitration clause does not render it ineffective and the intention of the parties to go for arbitration is to be determined on a complete reading of the clause and relevant clauses. The Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan reiterated that exclusive jurisdiction clause would override a venue clause, therefore, the court which has been conferred the exclusive jurisdiction will decide all arbitration applications arising out ...

"Confirming Party" To A Contract, Who Is Not Signatory To The Arbitration Clause, Can Invoke Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a confirming party to a Contract, who is not bound by the terms of the Contract and on whom no liability is affixed under the Contract, can be referred to arbitration even if he is not a signatory to the arbitration clause contained in the Contract. The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the fact that the party had signed the Agreement containing an arbitration clause, implied that it had consented to refer all the disputes under...

Delhi High Court Delineates Circumstances To Invoke "Group Of Companies" Doctrine

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the plea that signatures to the MoU containing an arbitration clause were obtained by threat and coercion, cannot be considered while considering an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for appointment of the Arbitrator. The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that each Company is a separate legal entity which has separate legal rights and liabilities and hence, an agreement entered ...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 2 October To 8 October, 2022

Supreme Court: Arbitral Tribunal Must Give Reasons For Fixing Interest Rate; Award Holder Not Entitled To Interest For Delay Caused By It : Supreme Court Case Title: Executive Engineer (R and B) versus Gokul Chandra Kanungo The Supreme Court recently held that a case where the award holder was responsible for delaying the proceedings which led to a huge lapse of time would be a fit case of exercising power under Article 142 to reduce the rate of interest on the sum of award. The...

Members Of Joint Venture Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause In Their Individual Capacity: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that where an agreement is entered into by the parties by forming a consortium / Joint Venture, one of the members of the consortium cannot separately invoke the arbitration agreement in their individual capacity. The Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna reiterated that when there is an agreement with a consortium, it is never the intention of the parties that one of the members of the consortium can separately invoke the arbitration clause. A notice...

Arbitral Award Directing Specific Performance Of Contract, Cannot Be Set Aside On Ground Of Inequitable Nature Of Contract: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that an arbitral award directing specific performance of a contract, cannot be set aside on the ground that the nature of agreement between the parties was not capable of specific enforcement. The Court added that the said issue related to the construction of an agreement, which cannot be made a ground for interference of the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The Division Bench of Justices Paresh...

Arbitral Tribunal Must Give Reasons For Fixing Interest Rate; Award Holder Not Entitled To Interest For Delay Caused By It : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a case where the award holder was responsible for delaying the proceedings which led to a huge lapse of time would be a fit case of exercising power under Article 142 to reduce the rate of interest on the sum of award. The Court further held the Arbitration and Conciliation Act casts a duty upon the arbitral tribunal to give reasons as to how it deems the rate of interest to be reasonable. Moreover, the Court held that no interest would be...