Trademark Disputes That Purely Arise Out Of Contractual Rights And Obligations Are Arbitrable: Delhi HC

The High Court of Delhi has observed that all the disputes that arise out of the Trade Marks Agreement are not outside the scope of arbitration. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru clarified that disputes that purely deal with the interpretation of the terms of a trademark agreement and are not related to the grant or registration of the trademarks can be decided in arbitration. The Court further clarified that unless it is a dispute relating to registration of trademarks, there...

No Distinction Between Decree Or Awards Where Amounts Are In Foreign Currencies For Purposes Of Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that for the purposes of enforcement of arbitral award, no distinction can be made between decree or awards where amounts are decreed or awarded in foreign currencies on the basis of the nationality of the disputing parties.Justice Vibhu Bakhru was dealing with a plea filed by a Decree Holder under sec. 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to enforce an Arbitral Award dated 07.01.2017. The issue before the Court was regarding the rate of...

Applications For Appointment Of Arbitrator Should Be Decided And Disposed At The Earliest:Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on April 1, 2022 expressed concerns at the time taken by the Telangana High Court to dispose of an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after a period of four years. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that arbitration applications for appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be...

'As Is Where Is' In A License Agreement Does Not Absolve The Contracting Parties To Make A Minimal Disclosure: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the award of an Arbitral Tribunal that stipulating the condition of 'as is where is basis' in a License Agreement does not absolve the contracting parties to make a disclosure about the licensed premises, which is otherwise not evident on visual inspection. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru ruled that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal and that the Court was not required to reappreciate...

Performance Security Cannot Be Retained After Acknowledgement Of Due Performance : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no principle in law whereby a party could be permitted to retain the Performance Security after it had acknowledged due performance of a contract.The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru upheld the award of an Arbitral Tribunal directing BSNL to refund the amount recovered by it from invocation of Performance Bank Guarantee, since no claim regarding failure to perform obligations under the Contract was made by it.The Petitioner BSNL had issued a...

Government Contracts, Arbitration And Clause Barring Grant Of Interest

Recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Manraj Enterprises[1] rendered by Division Bench has held impliedly that the previous decision of co-ordinate Bench in Union of India vs Pradeep Vinod Constructions[2] is not a good law for not considering the three Judge Bench decision in Union of India vs Bright Power Projects (India) (P) Ltd[3] and also for being contrary to what was held subsequently by another three Judge Bench in the case of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd...

No Claim Certificate (NCC) Must Be Examined In The Context Of Relevant Documents And The Covering Letter Under Which It Is Issued: Delhi HC

The High Court of Delhi has observed that a No Claim Certificate (NCC) shall be examined along with the covering letter in which it is sent and that mere issuance of the NCC by the Claimant shall not ipso facto entail the extinguishment of all the claims. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru further held that while adjudicating an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the Court must be mindful of the fact the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and strict rules of...

Amazon & Future Retail Agree In Supreme Court To Appear Before Singapore Arbitration Tribunal

Amazon and Future Retail Ltd on Monday expressed their agreement before the Supreme Court to appear before the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal. They further expressed their wish to have the arbitration proceedings expedited.The development happened in the special leave petition filed by Amazon challenging the Delhi High Court's order which stayed the arbitration proceedings on a challenge made by FRL. It has been the case of FRL that it is not covered by the arbitration agreement as Amazon's deal...

Challenge Against Arbitrator Appointment, Can't Be Under Section 14 Of The A&C Act ; Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not provide a separate remedy to the parties to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator, notwithstanding the provisions under Section 13 of the Act. The Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that a party can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator only according to the procedure set out in Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and that a petition under Section 14(1)...

Execution Of Foreign Arbitral Award, Singapore Being Reciprocating Country , Enforceable: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an international commercial arbitral award rendered between parties that have no connection with India can be enforced by a Court in India if the property against which the award is sought to be enforced lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj, held that India being a signatory to the New York Convention was required to enable execution of a...

Condition Of Pre-Deposit U/S 19 MSME Act Mandatory, Prevails Over Exemption To Govt Under Order XXVII Rule 8A CPC: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of a pre-deposit under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSME Act') would prevail over the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 8-A of Code of Civil Procedure and any other law that may allow the Courts' discretion while dealing with the requirement to pre-deposit a disputed amount in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Order XXVII Rule 8A prescribes that no security...

Very Sorry State of Affairs: Supreme Court On Pendency Of Execution Proceedings In Arbitration Matters For More Than 20 Years In Executing Courts In UP

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concerns at the pendency of execution proceedings for executing the award in Arbitration Matters before subordinate courts/executing courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court observed that if the Award, under the Arbitration Act, is not executed at the earliest, it will frustrate the purpose and object of the Arbitration Act as well as the Commercial Courts Act."This is a very sorry state of affairs that even the execution proceedings to execute...