ARBITRATION
Court Cannot Interfere In Arbitration Proceedings At Final Stage, When Sufficient Opportunity Has Been Given To Claimant To Inspect Documents: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain has upheld the order passed by the Arbitrator whereby an application seeking production of certain documents has been dismissed. The court held that sufficient opportunity had been given to the claimant, but he didn't avail that opportunity. Thus, the court cannot interfere with the order of the arbitrator at the final stage. Additionally, it said that the case is at the stage of final arguments and, therefore, the Court did not find any ...
Prescribing Pre-Qualification Criteria By Authority In Tender Document Cannot Be Considered Arbitrary If Conditions Are Reasonable: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das has held that the imposition of pre-qualification conditions by the tender-inviting authority cannot be interfered with by the courts when sufficient guidelines have been provided in the tender documents on how the authority's discretion shall be exercised. Brief Facts: The writ petitioner is a partnership firm and has set up a unit in BHARUCH, Gujrat for converting High density...
Second Execution Petition Cannot Be Entertained When First Petition Seeking Execution Of Arbitral Award Was Dismissed On Merits: Andhra Pradesh HC
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has held that a second execution petition for enforcing an award is not maintainable if the first was rejected on the ground that the award had not been set aside, solely because a signed copy was not filed with the application to set it aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). It also held that if valid grounds existed for setting aside the award, its execution cannot be ...
Proceedings Before Registrar U/S 62 Of AP Cooperative Societies Act Not Arbitration, Provisions Of A&C Act Will Not Apply: Andhra Pradesh HC
The division bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam has observed that when proceedings are held before the Registrar under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, such proceedings cannot be termed as arbitral proceedings.Accordingly, it was held that no provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 including Section 34 would be applicable to them. The appropriate remedy in such a case would be an appeal before the...
Party Nominating Arbitrator In Response To Notice U/S 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Prohibited From Raising Plea Of Limitation In Petition U/S 11: Madras HC
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once a party nominates an arbitrator in response to a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), it cannot later argue in a petition under Section 11 of the Act that the claim for which the notice was issued is time-barred. Brief Facts: The petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. A dispute has ...
Order Rejecting Jurisdictional Objections U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act Can Be Challenged U/S 34, Not Under Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao has held that an order rejecting jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can only be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration Act after an award is passed, and no writ petition against such an order can be entertained. Brief Facts: There was a joint venture cum shareholders agreement executed between the petitioners and ...
Execution Of Gift Deed After Arbitral Award Was Passed Indicates Attempt To Frustrate Rights Of Decree Holder, Not Bona Fide Conduct: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the execution of the Gift Deed by the petitioner after an arbitral award is passed suggests an attempt to frustrate the rights of the decree-holder. Also, the court held that the manner in which the Gift Deed has been executed by the parents clearly suggests that the sole objective was to somehow thwart and defeat the decree which has, reportedly, attained finality. Brief Facts of the case: The present dispute...
Arbitrator's Decision To Postpone Issue Of Partnership Firm's Dissolution To Stage Of Final Hearing Not Perverse: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that the decision of the Arbitrator to postpone the issue of determining the date of dissolution of the partnership firm to the stage of final hearing cannot be considered perverse for the purpose of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), as it requires evidence to be presented, which is necessary for such an issue to be decided. Brief Facts: The parties entered...
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Refusal Of Injunction Against Use Of Tagline "Jeeto Har DinZo" By Winzo Games
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has upheld the findings of the Arbitrator, who refused to grant an injunction restraining Winzo Games Private Limited (“Respondent”) from using the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” developed by Creativeland Advertising Private Limited (“Appellant”). Since there was no formal agreement fixing a price for the tagline and no claim of copyright infringement, the Appellant's claim was based solely on an alleged breach of confidentiality. The...
Benefit Of S.14 Of Limitation Act Extends To Delayed Filing Of Petition U/S 34 Of A&C Act Due To Prosecution In Good Faith In Another Court: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) can be extended to the petitioner who committed delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) due to the prevailing legal position at the time of filing, which was subsequently changed. Brief Facts: Disputes and differences had...
Court Must Assign Reasons For Accepting Or Rejecting Grounds Of Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be dismissed merely by stating that the scope of interference is limited; the court must address each ground of challenge and provide reasoned findings. Brief Facts: The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'NAFED') and the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'REPL') entered into two Tie Up...
Arbitrator's Mandate Can Be Extended If Non-Completion Of Proceedings In 12 Months Is Due To Delays Not Attributable To Petitioner: Himachal Pradesh HC
The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the arbitral proceedings are not completed within 12 months due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner, as failing to do so would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. Brief Facts: Pursuant to Notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the...