Venue Is Construed As Seat In Absence Of Contrary Indicia, If Arbitration Agreement Only Mentions 'Venue': Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that when only one place is mentioned in the arbitration agreement and is termed as “venue”, the same is to be treated as the “seat” also, unless something contrary is mentioned in the agreement.“If the arbitration agreement mentions only one place and even if it is termed as the 'venue', then unless there is a contrary indicia the 'venue' is construed as the 'seat',” held Justice Jaspreet Singh. Applicant filed an application for appointment of arbitrator under...

[Arbitration Act] S.34 Pleas Are Of Commercial Nature, Cannot Be Decided By Bench Having Ordinary Original Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai while deciding a Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) appeal, set aside an order passed in Section 34, ACA petition on the ground that the court passing it lacked the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The concerned judge had the power to determine only such applications under Section 34 which did not pertain to commercial matters, whereas the power to decide Section 34 applications of ...

Commercial Courts Act Is Entity-Neutral In Terms Of Limitation; Govt Suffers Same Pitfalls As Private Entity: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court Division Bench, comprising Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, observed that the Commercial Courts Act 2015 is an entity-neutral statute in terms of the limitation period. The Commercial Courts Act 2015 is in place to ensure the speedy resolution of high-stakes commercial disputes. Factual Matrix: The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (“TSIDCL”) had filed a Commercial Original Petition (“COM") u/s 31(1)(a) and...

Arbitration Half Yearly Digest 2025- Part 2

Supreme Court Arbitral Tribunal Can Proceed Against Party Though They Weren't Served With S.21 Notice Or Made Party In S.11 Application : Supreme Court Case Title: ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5297 OF 2025 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 439 The Supreme Court recently observed that not being served with the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and not being made a...

Court Can Extend Mandate Of Arbitrator Multiple Times If Sufficient Cause Is Shown U/S 29A(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the courts are not prohibited from extending the mandate of the Arbitrator multiple times if sufficient cause is established under section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, it extended the mandate of the Arbitrator beyond the timeline set by the Supreme Court. This is the second filed by the Petitioner seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Favour Of Sourav Ganguly Over Termination Of Player Representation Agreement

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur dismissed a Section 34 petition filed against an arbitral award passed in favour of cricket player Sourav Ganguly (“Respondent”) by his former management agency, Precept Talent Management Ltd. (“Petitioner”). While upholding the Arbitral Award, the Court observed that the award was well reasoned and the views taken by the Arbitral Tribunal were plausible. Therefore, the Award did not warrant any interference by the Court. Facts ...

Impleading Non-Signatory Against Whom No Cause Of Action Is Disclosed Does Not Defeat Reference To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

The Division Bench of Calcutta High comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar while deciding an appeal under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) against the dismissal of an application for reference under Section 8, ACA observed that where a non-signatory party has been impleaded against whom no cause of action has been disclosed in the suit and who is a collateral beneficiary, the Court can refer the parties to arbitration. The Court noted that it was...

Clause Saying Arbitration "May Be Sought" Doesn't Constitute A Binding Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a clause in an agreement that arbitration "may be sought" to resolve disputes between the parties will not constitute a binding arbitration agreement.Approving the refusal of the High Court to refer the parties to arbitartion, the Supreme Court observed that the phraseology of the clause did not indicate that the parties were bound to go for arbitration."...clause 13 does not bind parties to use arbitration for settlement of the disputes. Use of the words...

Arbitration Can't Be Restricted To Specific Respondents When Agreements Form Part Of Single Commercial Transaction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that when an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed in opposition to a civil suit, a party cannot later object that the arbitration was intended to apply only to specific respondents, especially when the pleadings indicate that the agreements formed part of a single commercial transaction. The present appeal has been filed under section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts...

Arbitration Half Yearly Digest 2025- Part 1

Supreme Court High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse : Supreme Court Case Title: SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14 The Supreme Court today criticized the High Court's intervention under its Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitral Proceedings, where it had directed the Arbitral Tribunal to grant additional time for one party to cross-examine...

Member Of Society Can Be Directed To Vacate Premises U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act For Smooth Redevelopment: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that a member of a society can be directed to vacate the premises occupied by them under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to ensure smooth redevelopment, if they act contrary to the terms of the Development Agreement These Appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) challenging the order dated 20 June 2025 passed by the learned Single...

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Of About ₹229.5 Crores Against NHAI As 'Termination Payment'

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has upheld an Arbitral Award directing the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”/”Petitioner”) to deposit ₹229.50 crores as Termination Payment into the Escrow Account along with interest and costs. The court reiterated that the scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is narrow and circumscribed. The Arbitral Award can be set aside on the ground, inter alia, being in conflict...