Executing Court Empowered To Grant Statutory Interest Not Mentioned In Award U/S 36 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court

Following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Sudhir Tyagi, the Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Executing Court is empowered to grant statutory interest which may not have been mentioned in the arbitral award.In Union of India and Anr. v. Sudhir Tyagi, it was held that “..the interpretation of Clause (b) of Section 31(7) of the Act is no more res-integra. The grant of post-award interest under...

Dismissal Of Plea U/S 8 Of A&C Act Amounts To Res Judicata; S.11 Court Cannot Refer Parties To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while dismissing a Section 11 petition under the A&C Act, observed that dismissing a Section 8 application under the A&C Act amounts to res judicata. The Section 11 Court cannot refer the parties to Arbitration if the order dismissing Section 8 is not set aside or interfered with. A Collaboration Agreement dated 26.11.2018 was entered into by the parties, and the Petitioner was required to carry out the...

Filing Application U/S 10 Of Commercial Courts Act With S.34 Petition Fulfills Requirements U/S 34 Of A&C Act: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Chandra Prakash Shrimali has held that merely if an application filed under Section 10, Commercial Courts Act (“CCA”) does not mention Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) in the heading, it does not mean that the application cannot be treated as an application under Section 34, ACA. Filing the application under Section 10, CCA and annexing the Section 34 petition fulfils the requirement of Section 34...

Govt Notifications Imposing Restrictions On Usage In Contracts For Supply Of Gas Are Laws Under Article 12, Must Be Complied With: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing a Section 34 petition, observed that the five contracts entered into between the parties were subject to the restrictions imposed by the Government. By providing the gas at a subsidised price, the Government has the authority to regulate the use of such gas. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (“MoPNG”) had apprised the Petitioner of the Government's policy concerning the usage of APM gas....

Mere Non-Signing Won't Invalidate Arbitration Agreement If Parties Otherwise Consented To Arbitration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that merely because an arbitration agreement was not signed, there is no bar to refer the dispute to arbitration, if the parties have otherwise consented to arbitration.The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Delhi High Court's decision which declined reference to arbitration merely because Respondent No.1 didn't sign the arbitration agreement. Since the Respondent No.1 consented to the contractual terms via email, the...

Non-Signatory Must Have Live & Proximate Connection To Arbitration Agreement For Being Pulled Into Proceedings U/S 9 Of A&C Act: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court Division Bench comprising of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao has observed that for being pulled into the proceedings u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, a non-signatory must have a live and proximate connection to arbitration agreement. The bench observed that the law has pushed the boundaries to pull in non-signatories to the arbitration agreement where the conduct of such parties reflects their intention to be...

Three-Month Deadline For Passing Arbitral Award Under NSE Byelaws Is Directory And Not Mandatory: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while deciding a petition under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) had an occasion to interpret Rule 13, National Stock Exchange (“NSE”) Byelaws. The Court held that Rule 13(b) which provided that arbitral award under the Rules must be rendered within three months from the date of entering upon reference was directory and not mandatory in nature. Facts The present petition was filed under Section...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Appointment Of Ex-Railway Officials As Arbitrators In Railway Dispute

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Amit Bansal has issued notice in a petition filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking termination of the mandate of the Standing Arbitral Tribunal (“SAT”) constituted by the Union of India, West Central Railway (“Respondent”) in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV). Background Facts The matter arose...

Proceedings Between Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate And Its Extension Are Not Void If Mandate Is Extended: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that proceedings conducted by the Arbitrator between the expiry of the mandate and its subsequent extension cannot be declared void once the application seeking extension is allowed. Upon extension, the mandate relates back to the date of expiry. The present application has been filed seeking extension of the Arbitrator's mandate. Earlier, the Respondent objected on the ground that the Arbitration continued the proceedings...

Failure To Frame Counter Claim As An Additional Issue When It Forms Part Of Pleadings Is Patently Illegal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that once the reasons/basis for a counter claim, the amount and computation of the counter claim had been made in the Reply, it does not matter if there is no specific prayer in the prayer clause. In such a scenario, an arbitral award refusing to frame an issue for the counter claim would be patently illegal and would be against the fundamental policy of Indian Law. Facts The present petition was filed under section...

Interim Injunction U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Granted To Prevent Convening Of Meeting For Removal Of Director: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has observed that an interim injunction under section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) cannot be granted to prevent convening of extraordinary general meeting for removal of a director as it effectively amounts to grant of final relief and impinges upon statutory powers conferred to a Company under the Companies Act, 2013. Facts The present appeals were filed by the Appellant...

Timeline Prescribed For Filing Statement Of Defence Under Rule 18(3) Of Indian Council Of Arbitration Rules Is Directory In Nature: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the timeline prescribed under Indian Council of Arbitration Rules, 2024 for filing a Statement of Defence by the respondent is directory in nature and can be extended by the Arbitral Tribunal if a sufficient cause is established. The Petitioner challenges an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by which it declined to accept the request of the petitioner to close the respondent's rights to file a statement of defence or ...