Weekly Digest Of Arbitration Cases: April 10 To April 17, 2022

Bombay High Court 1. Writ Petitions On The Ground Of 'Exceptional Circumstances' Against Order Passed By The Arbitral Tribunal Not Maintainable: Bombay High Court Case Title: Tagus Engineering Private Limited & Ors. versus Reserve Bank of India & Anr. and IDFC First Bank Limited versus Bell Invest India Limited & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 127 The Bombay High Court has ruled that remedy against orders passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration...

If The Agreement Stipulates For Reference To Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), The Claimant Must Exhaust That Remedy Before Seeking Arbitration : Chhattisgarh High Court

The High Court of Chhattisgarh has observed that a S. 11 application is not maintainable if the Petitioner before invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has not complied with the pre-condition of referring the dispute to the Dispute Resolution Committee as provided under the Agreement. The Chief Justice Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami held that the remedy of arbitration would only come into the picture after the Petitioner has successfully exhausted the other dispute resolution remedy...

MSME Facilitation Council Acted As Conciliator Can Also Administer The Arbitration, Bar Under S.80 Of A&C Act Does Not Apply : Chhattisgarh High Court

The High Court of Chhattisgarh has observed that the bar under S. 80 of the A&C Act which prevents the conciliator acting as the arbitrator does not apply to MSME Facilitation Council. The Single Bench of Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant has observed that provisions of S.80 of the A&C Act cannot override the provision of the MSMED Act to prevent the council from acting as arbitrator. It has been held that combined reading of Section 18 and 24 of the Act, 2006, show that...

Arbitration Agreement Not Discharged By Death Of A Party And Is Enforceable Against The Legal Representatives: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that an arbitration agreement will not be discharged by the death of a party and it will be enforceable by or against the legal representatives of the deceased party. The Single Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava held that though the legal representatives were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, but being the legal representatives of the signatory to an arbitration agreement, they were bound by the agreement. The applicant Papiya ...

Writ Petition Is Not Maintainable To Enforce The Arbitral Award: Madras High Court

The High Court of Madras observed that a writ petition cannot be filed to enforce an arbitral award when an alternative remedy is available under S. 36 of the A&C Act. The Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that the A&C Act is a complete code in itself and envisages minimum judicial intervention. If further observed that if the Courts are allowed to interfere beyond the permissible lines, then the efficacy of arbitration as an expeditious method of dispute...

Failure To Issue Notice For Additional Payment Does Not Preclude The Contractor From Later Claiming It In Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has observed that the failure of the contractor to issue notice under the contract does not deprive him of his right to claim additional payment before the arbitral tribunal. The Single Bench of Justice Bakhru also observed that such a stipulation in the contract is not a mandatory provision but only directory in nature and must be examined with reference to the other clauses and the contemporary records. The Court further held that ground of patent...

Dissenting Views Of Minority Members Does Not Constitute An Arbitral Award: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Arbitral Tribunal can pass only one arbitral award and not multiple awards. The Bench, consisting of Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha, ruled that the dissenting views of the minority member(s) of an Arbitral Tribunal does not constitute an Arbitral Award, and the dissenting views cannot be made the basis of a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for setting aside the arbitral award or...

Scope Of Section 9 Of The A&C Act Cannot Be Extended To Enforcement Of The Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) cannot be extended to enforcement of the arbitral award or granting the fruits of the award to the award holder as an interim measure. The Single Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the right to withdraw the amount deposited by the award debtor, pursuant to an application filed for stay of operation of the award under Section 36(2), does not constitute as ...

Petition Under Section 9 Of The A&C Act Is Not Maintainable Against The Order By Arbitral Tribunal On Arbitration Fees: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for interim measures of protection, is not maintainable before the Court against the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, held that the procedural orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal fixing the arbitration fees does not fall within the ambit of Section 9 of the A&C Act, and...

Arbitral Award A Nullity If Passed Beyond Prescribed Period: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) are cast in mandatory terms and the mandate of the arbitrator terminates under Section 29A(4) after the expiry of the prescribed period, making the arbitrator functus-officio and the award passed by him a nullity. The Bench, consisting of Justice P. Naveen Rao and Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani, ruled that substitution of Section 29A(1) of the A&C Act by the ...

Writ Petition Is Maintainable Against The Award Of The MSME Council Which Failed To Give A Hearing On Limitation : Orissa High Court

The High Court of Orissa has observed that a writ petition is maintainable against an award rendered by the MSME Council under S. 18 of the MSMED Act wherein the petitioner was not given a hearing on a material issue regarding the limitation of the substantive claims. The Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha has observed that in cases where an award is passed without hearing a party, the availability of an alternative remedy to challenge the award under S. 19 of the MSMED Act r/w S. 34...

On Procedural Aspects The Arbitration Act Must Yield To The Provisions Of The Commercial Courts Act: Orissa High Court

The High Court of Orissa has observed that the Court for the purpose of deciding all the applications arising out of the arbitration agreement between the parties would be the Commercial Court as defined under the Commercial Courts Act which need not necessarily be the Principal Civil Court as provided under the Arbitration Act. The Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court can be conferred on a judicial officer subordinate to the rank of a District Judge, i.e., the ...