Forced Shift Of Arbitration Venue Without Consent Of Party Amounts To Perversity: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the forced shift of the Arbitration Venue without the consent of a party amounts to perversity and patent lack of inherent jurisdiction.The order was passed in a writ petition, challenging a procedural order, by way of which the venue of the 'Closing hearing' was moved from New Delhi to IDRC in London without considering the objections of the respondent“The forced shift from New Delhi to London would hence not only amount to perversity in terms of the...

When High Court Appoints, High Court Extends: Clarifying Jurisdictional Anomaly Under Section 29A Of Arbitration Act

When Parliament introduced Section 29A into the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) it was hailed as a reform that would make arbitration faster and more disciplined.Section 29A of the Arbitration Act mandates that an arbitral award must be passed within twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings. This period may be further extended by mutual consent of the parties for an additional six months. Once this statutory period expires, the mandate of the arbitral...

[Arbitration Act] Limitation For Filing S.11 Application To Be Calculated From Date Of S.21 Notice, Not From Date Of Dispute: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that the limitation for filing a Section 11 application under the A&C Act would be calculated from the date of serving the Section 21 notice to the other side and not from the date when the cause of action had arisen. The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a Section 11 application praying for the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 29.02.2016. ...

Right To Seek Arbitration Not Lost Just Because Arbitration Clause Became Inoperable Due To Statutory Amendment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the invalidity or inoperability of an arbitration clause, such as one naming an ineligible arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not nullify the underlying arbitration agreement between the parties. The Court clarified that in such cases, the Court is empowered to step in and appoint a neutral arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act to preserve the efficacy of the arbitration mechanism.The Court emphasised that the...

[Arbitration Act] S.11 Application Is Maintainable Even Without Notice U/S 21 If Other Party Is Aware Of Dispute: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench has held that a Section 11 petition under the A&C Act without issuing the notice invoking arbitration (“NIA”) u/s 21 of the A&C Act would be maintainable if the Respondents were aware of the dispute being referred to arbitration. The bench noted that the Respondents were well-versed in the dispute raised by the Petitioner. They could not have been surprised after the Petitioner's plaint was returned by the trial court under Order VII Rule 10...

HCL Infosystems Wins ₹102.81 Crore Arbitral Award Against UIDAI

HCL Infosystems, a HCL Group company, informed the stock exchanges on Sunday that it has received a ₹102.81 crore arbitration award in its favour against the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).The award covers dues, deductions, and additional costs for Managed Service Provider (MSP) services provided between August 7, 2019, and August 6, 2021. It includes 10% annual interest up to the date of the award, and the same rate applies until full payment is made.UIDAI's counterclaims of...

Power Of High Court To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Is “Co-Extensive” With Power To Appoint Arbitrator: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), an application under section 29A(4) seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitrator can be entertained by the High Court only and not by the Principal Civil Court or Commercial Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. Justice Shampa Sarkar held that while section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act...

Single Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Maintainable Against Composite Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a single petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is maintainable challenging a composite arbitral award disposing of multiple references. A bench led by Justice Shampa Sarkar held that “the Court does not hesitate to hold that the learned arbitrator and the parties understood the proceeding before the learned arbitrator arising out of five references, to be one composite proceeding and the learned...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: September 2025

Supreme Court Arbitration | Delivery Of Award To Govt Official Not Connected With Case Doesn't Amount To Valid Service On State : Supreme Court Cause Title: M/S. MOTILAL AGARWALA Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 867 The Supreme Court has clarified that when the government or one of its departments is a party to arbitration, delivery of an arbitral award to an official who is not connected with or aware of the proceedings cannot be treated as...

Proceedings For Conciliation & Arbitration Under MSME Act Cannot Be Clubbed: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has set set aside two ex-parte orders passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Daman holding that the council acted in breach of mandatory two stage procedures under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”). The court remitted the matter for fresh arbitration in accordance with law. A bench led by Justice N.J. Jamadar held that “If the appellant had not submitted its reply at the conciliation...

[Arbitration Act] Doctrine Of Merger Inapplicable When Superior Forum Has Not Decided Issue In Question: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court held that the doctrine of merger does not preclude the decree holder from claiming post award interest at 18% under section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The court quashed an order passed by the Principal District Judge by which it rejected the review application. The court directed the State of Gujarat to recalculate and pay interest on the sum adjudged in the arbitral award. A bench led by Justice Maulik J. Shelat held...

Mere Change In Arbitral Rules Does Not Frustrate Arbitration Agreement: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice C.M. Joshi has set aside interim injunctions granted by Commercial Court by which it restrained L & T Infra Investment Partners Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (“L&T Infra”) from proceeding with arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules against Bhoruka Power Corporation Limited (“BPCL”) and its promoter shareholders. The Court held that when the parties have expressly chosen...