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 ...

Post-Termination Restrictive Covenants In Employment Contracts Are Void U/S 27 Of Contract Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that post-service restrictive covenants in employment contracts, which operate after cessation of employment, are void and are not enforceable under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”) and violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court vacated the injunction granted in an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), which restrained the...

Non-Signatories Have No Right To Attend Arbitration Proceedings, Their Presence Breaches Confidentiality : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Aug. 13) observed that a party non-signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot participate in the arbitration proceedings, as the signatories to an arbitration agreement are only entitled to remain present in the arbitration proceedings. The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which allowed the non-signatories to an arbitration agreement to attend the arbitration proceedings in the presence of their...

Place Of Exclusive Jurisdiction Deemed As 'Seat' Of Arbitration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of a seat or venue of arbitration in the arbitration agreement, the place where the exclusive jurisdiction has been vested as per the agreement would be regarded as the 'seat' of the arbitration.The bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order allowing an application for the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute where the arbitration agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction for...

OYO Approaches Delhi High Court Challenging Arbitral Award In Co-Working Space Lease Dispute Against Lenskart

Oyo has filed a section 34 petition before the High Court of Delhi, challenging a few portions of an arbitral award passed in the dispute between Oyo and Lenskart (“Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt Ltd v. Lenskart Solutions”) pertaining to the termination of a co-working space lease during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the arbitral proceedings, Oyo was partially successful and has filed the Section 34 petition to set aside the arbitral tribunal's finding concerning compensation for the lock-in period...

Parties' Decision To Transact Goods In 'Sound Condition' Prevails Over Prior Agreement To Transact On 'As Is Where Is' Basis”: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar while upholding an arbitral award has observed that if the parties had agreed to transact goods on 'as is where is' basis in the tender document but agreed in the acceptance letter that the goods would be transacted on 'sound condition' basis, then the earlier agreement will stand substituted by the latter understanding between the parties and the goods will be transacted on 'sound condition'...

Reference To Dispute Resolution Board Not Mandatory Before Invoking S.11(6) Of Arbitration Act If It Is Not Constituted On Time: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a party cannot be compelled to approach the Dispute Resolution Board (DSB) for resolution of disputes first before invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act especially when the DSB was not constituted as per terms of the contract and its composition was not even communicated to the Petitioner within the stipulated time period after the execution of the contract therefore seeking...