Court Exercising Power U/Sec 9 Arbitration Act Not Strictly Bound By CPC ; Should Not Withhold Interim Relief On Mere Technicality: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not strictly bound by provisions of CPC and should not withhold relief on the mere technicality.Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief under Section 9, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed.Section 9 of the...

Arbitrator Can Award Interest On Interest Under The A&C Act: Orrisa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that the arbitrator can award separate interest on claims which are in nature of interest for delayed payment. The Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha held that bar under Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 does not apply interest under the A&C Act. It held that under Section 31(7)(a) of the A&C Act there is no bar on the grant of interest on interest. The Court further held that a party cannot challenge the arbitral award on the ground that the...

Would Subsequent Agreement Cover Past Transactions ? Arbitrator To Decide: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the High Court cannot examine an issue as to whether the arbitration clause in a subsequent agreement would govern past transactions of similar nature as it requires detailed consideration of clauses and surrounding circumstances. The Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao held that the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Act does not permit the High Court to...

Rejection Of Belated Application For Amendment Of Claim - Not An Interim Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the order of the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application for amendment of statement of claims on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage, does not constitute an interim award and thus, it is not challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). While observing the distinction between the rejection of application for amendment of claims and counter claims on the ground of limitation vis-à-vis on the...

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Without Protest, In Absence Of Agreement On Seat; Venue Is Also The Seat Of Arbitration: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that where the parties have failed to specifically mention the seat of arbitration and have participated in the arbitral proceedings at a place without any protest, the parties shall be said to have determined, by their conduct, the said venue of arbitral proceedings as also the seat of arbitration. Hence, the courts at the said place would have exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the arbitral proceedings. The Single Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra...

Arbitration Clause In An Unregistered But Compulsorily Registrable Document Can Be Enforced: Uttarakhand High Court Reiterates

The Uttarakhand High Court recently observed that an arbitration agreement does not require registration under the Registration Act. Relying on the Supreme Court's findings in SMS Tea Estates Private Limited v. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited, (2011) 14 SCC 66, a bench comprising Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi reiterated: "Even if it is found as one of the clauses in a contract or instrument, it is an independent agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, which is independent...

Substitution Of Arbitrator Based On Allegation Of Collusion Can't Be Done Under Section 11 of A& C Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has ruled that in an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), the Court cannot, on the ground of collusion, refuse to appoint the arbitrator as specified in the arbitration clause and appoint a substitute arbitrator. The Single Bench of Justice K. Lakshman held that the allegations regarding any collusion between the specified arbitrator and the opposite party cannot be decided in an application filed under...

Parties Can Deviate From Terms Of Jurisdiction Under The Arbitration Clause Only Once: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that the parties have got the liberty to deviate from the terms with respect to the jurisdiction, as contained in the Arbitration Clause; however, the number of such deviations is limited to only one. The Single Bench of Justice R.N. Manjula held that waiver of the jurisdiction clause contained in the arbitration agreement can be presumed from the conduct of the parties. The Court added that if the parties have waived the earlier agreement on jurisdiction...

Interlocutory Order Passed By The Arbitrator, Rejecting Application For Amendment Of Claims; Not Challengeable Under Article 227: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that all interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal are not amenable to challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that there is no statutory or other legal bar under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), including under the proviso to Section 34 (2A) of the A&C Act, against raising the interlocutory order passed by the Arbitrator rejecting the ...

Writ Maintainable Against An Award Passed By Statutory Arbitrator Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that an award passed by the statutory arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 where neither the notice of arbitration was served nor the copy of the award was given to the appellants is violative of principles of natural justice. The Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Kausik Chanda held the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 34 of the A&C Act cannot be a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition against...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 4 September To 10 September, 2022

Supreme Court: Arbitration Clause Has To Be Given Effect Even If It Does Not Expressly State That Decision Of Arbitrator Is Final & Binding On Parties: Supreme Court Case Title: Babanrao Rajaram Pund versus Samarth Builders & Developers Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 747 The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration clause has to be given effect even if it does not expressly state that the decision of the arbitrator will be final and binding on the parties. The...

Court Can't Appoint Arbitrator Where Parties Fail To Raise Dispute In Time Or Avoid In-House Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently, while dealing with a matter pertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that court can't entertain application for appointment of arbitrator where parties fail to raise dispute in time or avoid in-house dispute resolution mechanism.The observation was made by Justice Arup Kumar Goswami:"A perusal of Clause 16 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Contract would go to show that if there is a dispute,...