Presence Of An Arbitration Clause Does Not Always Oust Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that writs under Article 226 are maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the State or its instrumentalities and the presence of Arbitration clause does not oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be invoked.The observation came from Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a plea seeking a direction...

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

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 deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies the intention of the parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise the annulment of arbitration clause, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka observed.In this case, the agreement between the parties...

Accepting Terms And Conditions on Website Containing Arbitration Agreement, Valid: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has reiterated that reference of a dispute to arbitration can only be refused in cases of "serious allegations of fraud", which is made out when either of the tests propounded by the Apex Court in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. versus HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited (2020), are satisfied.The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni ruled that a declaration made by a party in the KYC executed by it, accepting the terms and conditions provided on the...

Non-Payment/Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty Cannot Render The Arbitration Agreement Invalid: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that non-payment or insufficiency of stamp duty on the underlying agreement cannot render the arbitration clause invalid. The Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited[1] and Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.[2] to hold that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of...

Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Can Be Presumed If No Denial Is Made In The Reply: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the words "statements of claim and defence" under Section 7(4)(c) of the A&C Act are to be given wider interpretation and reply to a notice of arbitration falls within the section. The bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar held in terms of Section 7(4)(c) an arbitration agreement is said to exist if the petitioner has asserted its existence in its notice of arbitration and the respondent has not denied its existence in its reply to the notice. ...

Commercial Court Cannot Be Regarded As A "Person Or Institution" Under Section 11(6) Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the jurisdiction and power of the High Court in relation to the appointment of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), has not been divested by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court added that the term "all applications or appeals arising out of such arbitration", as provided under Section 10 (3) of the Commercial Courts Act, does not take within its ambit the application which is...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 28 August To 3 September, 2022

Bombay High Court: Notice Under Section 21 Of A&C Act Issued; Court Not Barred From Exercising Jurisdiction Under Section 9: Bombay High Court Case Title: Relcon Infroprojects Ltd. & Anr. versus Ridhi Sidhi Sadan, Unit of Shree Ridhi Co.op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors The Bombay High Court has ruled that merely because a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to refer the disputes to arbitration is issued by a party, the Court...

Award Passed By A Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est, It Cannot Be A Bar To The Maintainability Of Petition Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The High Court of Delhi has held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is non-est, therefore, it cannot be a bar to the maintainability of a petition under Section 11 of the A&C Ac. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held that passing of an award would not give sanctity to the non-est proceedings and the mere fact that the petitioner did not challenge the unilateral appointment under Section 14 of the Act cannot deprive it of the right to approach the court...

Order Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Which Results In Conclusion Of Arbitral Proceedings- Can Be Challenged Under Section 34: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that if an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), of ruling on its own jurisdiction, has the effect of concluding the arbitral proceedings, the same would be challengeable under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar held that since registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) is not compulsory, the...

Order Passed By High Court, Recording Consent Of Parties To Appoint A Specified Arbitrator, Is Not An Order 'Appointing An Arbitrator': Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has ruled that the order passed by the High Court in a writ petition, recording the consent of the parties to appoint a specified Arbitrator while referring them to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), cannot be said to be an order appointing an Arbitrator. The Single Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol held that once the party has filed an application under Section 14 of the A&C Act, to decide on the ...

Section 8 Of A&C Act Falls Outside The Scope Of Section 42: Madras High Court Reiterates

The Madras High Court has reiterated that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is an exception to Section 42 of the A&C Act. The Court added that if Section 8 is also brought within the ambit of Section 42, it would defeat the sublime philosophy underlining arbitration i.e., party autonomy. The Single Bench of Justice M. Sundar ruled that a party has no choice of jurisdiction while filing a Section 8 application, and that it is a Hobson's choice for...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Round Up: August 2022

Supreme Court: Mere Use Of Words "Arbitration" Or "Arbitrator" In A Clause Won't Make It Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Case Title: Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. versus IVRCL AMR Joint Venture Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 657 The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration agreement should disclose a determination and obligation on behalf of the parties to refer the disputes to arbitration. The Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna noted that mere use of ...