Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Again Over Matters Which Have Already Been Adjudicated: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said the Arbitration clause in the lease agreement cannot be invoked for matters that have already been adjudicated upon and concluded by both the Arbitral Tribunal and the competent courts.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Starlog Enterprises Limited, who had approached the court praying for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes that had arisen between him and New Mangalore Port Trust. It said,...

[Arbitration Act] To Prove Corruption Of The Arbitrator, It Should Be Evident From The Award Itself That He Tried To Curb The Course Of Justice

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has observed that if the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings or making of the award was affected or induced by fraud or corruption, then an unconditional stay of award can be granted. However, such corruption must be prima facie evident from the award itself and an honest mistake or erroneous application of law by the arbitrator would not amount to corruption. Background Facts In 2016, the Railways floated a tender for...

LLP Can Be Bound By Arbitration Clause Despite Not Being Signatory To LLP Agreement: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mere fact that an LLP is not a signatory to an LLP Agreement does not, by itself, preclude it from being a party to arbitration proceedings initiated between Partners under the arbitration clause of such an agreement. The Court observed that an LLP is not a “third party” to its LLP Agreement but an entity with rights and obligations vis-à-vis its partners as per the statutory scheme of the LLP Act. The Arbitral...

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act By Attaching TMT Steel Bars Worth ₹69.5 Crores Made Using Coal Whose Quality Was Disputed

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has granted interim relief to a petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the extent of 50% of the balance outstanding claimed i.e., Rs. 69.50 Crores by attaching TMT Steel bars (finished product) of the equivalent amount in a dispute over the quality of coal delivered, which was used to manufacture the steel bars. Brief Facts of the case: The dispute arose with respect to an agreement for the...

[Arbitration Act] Limitation Does Not Stop If Initial Filing Is Non Est, Date Of Filing Must Be Reckoned From Date Of Refiling: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the filing of the arbitral award under challenge along with application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement and non-filing of the same would make the application non est in the eyes of law. The Court further observed that such a non est filing would not stop the limitation and the date of filing would be reckoned from the date...

S.17 Of Arbitration Act Casts Weighty Burden On Party To Persuade Court To Hold Onto S.9 Proceedings After Formation Of Tribunal: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has held that the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act grants a bouquet of protections to a party during the course of arbitral proceedings. It clarified that section 9 (3) restricts a party from seeking interim protection before a Court, once a tribunal has been constituted. After the amendment, once the Tribunal has been constituted, the parties can avail of the protection under section 17 by applying to the Tribunal.The Bench further explained that...

Time Spent Before 'Wrong' Court Excluded U/S 14 Of Limitation Act While Calculating Limitation Period U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that during the calculation of the limitation period of three months for the application under Section 34(1) of the Act, the time during which the applicant was prosecuting such application before the wrong court is excluded. Court noted that the proceedings in the wrong court should be bona fide, with due diligence. Brief Facts of the case: The appellant has filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration &...

Party Cannot Be Forced To Accept Arbitrator Who Has Conflict Of Interest, Violates Principles Of Natural Justice And Fair Trial: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that a party could not be forced to accept an arbitrator who has a conflict of interest, as the same would violate the principles of a fair trial. The court held that the Perpetual Lease Deed, as well as the Byelaws, which provide for the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to be the sole arbitrator for adjudicating disputes between the petitioner and the department, would be against the law.Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan observed that the Registrar, who was...

Referral Court Can Reject Arbitration Only In Exceptional Cases Where Plea Of Fraud Appears To Be Ex Facie Devoid Of Merit: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar observed that unless the arbitration agreement prima facie appeared to be inoperative on account of fraud, the referral Court should not indulge in a roving inquiry as such an inquiry is within the domain of the arbitrator. The fact whether the agreement was induced by fraud would entail a detailed consideration of the evidence lead by the parties and these issues cannot be decided by the referral court. Background The loan...

Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Party : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm."An arbitration agreement does not cease to exist on the death of any party and the arbitration agreement can be enforced by or against the legal representatives of the deceased," the Court stated, referring to the judgment in Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel & Anr., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 667.The bench comprising Justice JB...

When Application U/S 33 Of A&C Act Is 'Disguised Review', Limitation For Challenging Award U/S 34 Cannot Be Extended: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that if the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is purely an application for review, then the person seeking to challenge the award cannot avail of the time taken between the filing of the application under Section 33 and the date of disposal for calculating the period to challenge the award. The court stated that Section 33 cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to prolong limitation...

[Arbitration Act] Pre-Referral Jurisdiction Of Court U/S 11(6) Includes Inquiry On Whether Claims Are Ex-Facie & Hopelessly Time Barred: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that while the scope of adjudication by referral court is limited and entails a mere examination of whether the arbitration agreement exists or not, the referral court is not precluded from examining whether the claim is deadwood or ex facie barred. Background Facts The agreement between the parties was entered into on December 31, 2004 and the work order was issued sometime in 2006. It is contended by the Petitioner...