Once Arbitration Commences After Failure Of Conciliation Under MSME Act, It Cannot Be Reinitiated By Halting Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that once arbitral proceedings commenced under Section 18(3) under the MSME Act, the process could not be reversed to reinitiate pre-arbitral conciliation. The Council did not do so either. It was only at the petitioner's request that additional avenues for mutual settlement were explored alongside the arbitration. Upon the failure of these efforts, the Council proceeded to decide the matter on merits. Brief...

Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against BCCI, Directs Payment Of ₹538.9 Crore To Defunct IPL Franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala

The Bombay High Court has upheld an arbitral award granting damages amounting to 538.9 crore to Kochi Cricket Private Limited ("KCPL”), the parent company of defunct IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala.It was held that the Court cannot act as a Court of First Appeal and delve into a fact-finding exercise by revisiting and re-appreciating the record and accepting competing interpretations of the various clauses of the agreements between the parties by invoking the ground of ...

Ex Parte Order Can Be Recalled If Party Complies With Directions & Legal Issues Require Full Hearing For Proper Adjudication: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar has held that an ex parte order may be recalled when the concerned party appears later, complies with the court's directions, and the matter involves complex legal issues requiring a fair hearing from both sides for an effective adjudication. Brief Facts: This application has been filed for recalling an ex-parte order passed by this Court on 15.07.2024, whereby this Court has held that the award submitted by the ...

When Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act, It Cannot Set Aside Award On Merits: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray and has held that Once the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 application—having been filed beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) and its proviso—any finding on the validity of the arbitral award as void ab initio was without legal authority. Entertaining a time-barred application under Section 34 was a grave error of law on the part of the learned Court. Brief Facts: ...

New Arbitrator Must Initiate Proceedings Afresh When Previous Arbitrator's Appointment Is Void Ab Initio: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim has held that where an arbitral award is set aside on the ground that the appointment of the arbitrator was void ab initio and the arbitral proceedings are declared non est, the new arbitrator must initiate proceedings afresh. The question of admissibility of previously recorded evidence is to be decided by the new arbitrator. Brief Facts The petitioner, M.I. Mohammed, a government contractor, entered into an agreement with M/s...

Arbitration Clause Allowing MD To Appoint Sole Arbitrator After Failure Of Appointment By Mutual Consent Violates SC's Order: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the clause in question indeed contemplates the appointment of an Arbitrator by mutual consent; however, in the event of failure, it vests the power of appointing a Sole Arbitrator with the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1. It further held that the Company acting through its Managing Director will have interest in the outcome of the dispute and therefore, appointment of Sole Arbitrator will be directly hit by the law...

Recourse To External Correspondences To Interpret Clause Despite Clear & Unambiguous Terms Amounts To 'Patent Illegality': Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that when the language of the contract is plain, clear and unambiguous, recourse to internal aids of interpretation or extraneous materials such as negotiations and correspondence is impermissible. “Ignoring an explicit clause of the contract or acting contrary to the terms of the contract amounts to patent illegality.”, the court held. Brief Facts The Appellant entered into contracts with ...

Once Right To File Written Statement Is Closed, Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act Can't Be Entertained: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla has held that once the right to file a written statement is closed, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking reference to arbitration is not maintainable. Brief Facts: This Regular First Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenges the judgment dated 25.11.2024 passed by the District Judge, Commercial Court-06, South-East District, Saket Courts, New...

Right To Appoint Arbitrator Is Not Automatically Forfeited After Expiry Of 30 Days From Date Of Demand Made By Other Party: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer has held that if an arbitrator is not appointed within 30 days of the demand by the other party, the right to appoint is not automatically forfeited. However, such appointment must be made after the 30-day period but before the other party files an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. This is a petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an ...

In Interconnected Agreements, Use Of Word 'May' Does Not Defeat Clear Intention To Arbitrate In Main Agreement: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that in case of interconnected agreements, where the mother agreement clearly and unequivocally refers the disputes to arbitration, mere use of 'may' in the arbitration clause of one of the ancillary agreements will not defeat the intention to arbitrate. Brief Facts: This application has been filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act seeking an appointment of an Arbitrator. The Applicant, a developer, entered...

Whether A Particular Contract Is A Works Contract Under MSME Can't Be Decided Under Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that the question of whether a particular contract is a works contract or not is for the MSME Council to decide, and the dispute cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction. Brief Facts: This writ petition challenges the order dated 21.12.2024 in Case No. 1292/MSEFC/2021 passed by Respondent No. 2, seeking a declaration that the order is non-arbitrable and illegal. The petitioner prays for a direction to Respondent No. 2 to...

Applicability Of Arbitration Clause Is To Be Determined By Arbitrator, Cannot Be Decided In S.11 Plea: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that contentions regarding the applicability and relevance of an arbitration agreement are to be dealt with by the arbitrator and cannot be gone into at the stage of section 11 petition. Once the existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed, any dispute related to the applicability of the agreement has to be dealt by the arbitrator. Brief Facts of the case: The petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and...