WhatsApp, Email Communications Between Parties Can Constitute Valid Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that communications between the parties through WhatsApp and emails can constitute a valid arbitration agreement. Justice Jasmeet Singh perused Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act and said that it is not necessary for a concluded contract to be in existence for a valid arbitration agreement to be existing between the parties.The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a UAE based company, Belvedere Resources DMCC, seeking monetary security of approximately...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: [23rd June-29th June 2025]

High Courts Bombay High Court Contractor Cannot Be Denied Payment For Extra Work Approved By Railways Through Their Actions: Bombay High Court Case Title: Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway Versus PLR HC RBR JV Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.51 OF 2024 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that a contractor cannot be denied payment for extra work that, while beyond the original scope of the agreement,...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 16th June - 22nd June 2025

High Courts Bombay High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against BCCI, Directs Payment Of ₹538.9 Crore To Defunct IPL Franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala Case Title: Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Anr. Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2015 and ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1753 OF 2015 The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting damages amounting to 538.9 crore to Kochi Cricket Private Limited...

Sole Arbitrator's Appointment By One Party Due To Other Party's Inaction After Notice Is Not Unilateral: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya has held that an arbitrator appointed by one party in accordance with the agreed terms, after giving due notice, cannot be challenged as a unilateral appointment if the other party was given a full and fair opportunity to nominate its arbitrator but chose not to act. In such a situation, enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: The...

Party That Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Not Barred From Challenging Appointment U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that a party that unilaterally appoints an arbitrator is not prohibited from challenging the award on the ground that it violates Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. Mere exercise of the power to make such an appointment does not constitute an express written waiver as required under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: The present appeal...

Plaint Can't Be Rejected Under O.VII R.11 Of CPC Due To Arbitration Clause Unless Application U/S 8 Of A&C Act Is Filed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that if a proper application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must refer the parties to arbitration and may reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by law. However, if no such application is filed and no prayer is made for reference to arbitration, the mere existence of an arbitration clause is not sufficient to reject the...

MSME Council's Order Declaring Jurisdiction To Decide Dispute Between Parties Can Be Challenged Only U/S 34 Of A&C Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra has held that once the MSME Council initiates arbitration following the termination of conciliation proceedings, any order passed by the Council regarding its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute can only be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The aggrieved party cannot invoke Article 227 of the Constitution to seek setting aside of an award passed under the MSMED Act. Brief Facts: M/s Odisha...

When Party Questions Validity Of Draft Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause, Reference Can't Be Sought Based On It: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy and Sri Justice N. Tukaramji has held that when a party, in its reply to a Section 8 petition under the Arbitration Act, has expressly denied the existence or validity of the agreements containing the arbitration clause by terming them null and void, such agreements cannot subsequently be relied upon by the same party as the basis to seek reference of the disputes to arbitration. Brief Facts: The instant appeal has been filed...

Contractor Cannot Be Denied Payment For Extra Work Approved By Railways Through Their Actions: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that a contractor cannot be denied payment for extra work that, while beyond the original scope of the agreement, was clearly consented to by the other party through its conduct. When such work is accepted, measured, and not objected to contemporaneously, the benefiting party cannot later claim it was beyond the contract's scope. To allow this would amount to unjust enrichment. Brief Facts: This Petition has been...

J&K High Court Resolves Arbitrator Fee Stalemate, Directs Centre To Deposit Fee As Per 4th Schedule Arbitration Act

In an order addressing the long-pending stalemate in an arbitration matter, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court directed the Union of India to deposit the arbitrator's fee as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enabling the pronouncement of the arbitral award.The issue before the court was whether a government-prescribed internal fee structure for empanelled arbitrators could override the statutory fee scale in the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act.The Court...

Party Barred From Taking Plea Of Duress After Accepting Full & Final Settlement Pursuant To Court Order: Kerala High Court

The Kerela High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M. and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari has held that when the payment due to the petitioner was made by the respondent pursuant to a court order explicitly directing it as full and final settlement of all liabilities, and the petitioner also issued a letter accepting the same, he cannot subsequently claim that the letter was issued under duress or out of necessity. Brief Facts: This appeal is filed by the State challenging...

Reliefs Similar To Those Sought Before Arbitrator & Commercial Court Can't Be Claimed Before Writ Court: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has held that reliefs similar to those already sought before the Arbitrator and subsequently before the Commercial Court cannot be claimed before the writ court, especially when alternative efficacious remedies are available before the same forums for seeking such reliefs. Brief Facts: The petitioner seeks a direction for release of ₹53,56,026.00 under Clause 46A.7 (price variation clause) of...