Appointment Of Arbitrator In International Commercial Arbitration By HC Does Not Vitiate Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the appointment of the Arbitrator in an International Commercial Arbitration (“ICA”) by the Chief Justice of the High Court, does not vitiate the impugned award. The bench held that the objection to the appointment of the arbitrator should have been raised during the arbitration proceedings. Since the parties failed to do so, they were deemed to have waived their right to object. Brief Facts of the case: Cross...

Arbitration Act | Appellate Courts Can't Reassess Awards, Must Limit Enquiry On Public Policy Breach : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitral awards should only be interfered with in cases of perversity, violation of public policy, or patent illegality. It emphasized that appellate courts cannot reassess the merits of awards and must limit their inquiry to whether the award breaches Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act i.e., if the award is against the public policy of India.The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case where the dispute arose...

[S.12A Commercial Courts Act] Pre-Institution Mediation Is Intended To Encourage Parties To Use Litigation As Last Resort: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that the clear intent of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to encourage parties to use litigation as a last resort and to resolve commercial disputes amicably, informally, cheaply and quickly under the process of mediation. Additionally, the court modified the interim relief to the effect that upon the appellant making payment of Rs.2 crores and filing an affidavit of assets and...

Double Payment For Same Claim Violates Public Policy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court Bench of Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind held that the issue of double payment for the same claim would undoubtedly be in direct conflict with the Public Policy of India and would violate the Fundamental Policy of Indian Law, as well as the basic principles of morality and justice. Additionally, the court held that it is well established in law that double payment for the settlement of a single claim is impermissible. Brief Facts: ...

Court Cannot Assume Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator Unless Request For Reference Of Dispute Is Received By Respondent: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. M. Joshi has held that compliance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and that the court cannot assume jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 unless a request for a reference of dispute is received by the respondent. Brief Facts: The dispute arose with respect to a sub-contract between the parties. Clause No. 32 of the sub-contract provides for the settlement of dispute amicably and, on...

When Counter-Claim Is Related To Primary Dispute, It Can Be Filed Before Tribunal U/S 23 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that while any counter-claim may relate to a different cause of action, it can still stem from a primary dispute between the parties. Thus, the court held that the governing factor would be to see whether it has any connection with the original dispute or is isolated and separable. For all purposes, the court observed that the counter-claim in this case was, directly or indirectly, related to the primary dispute between the parties...

[Arbitration Act] Application U/S 34 Without Award Copy Or Vakalatnama Is Merely A 'Stack Of Papers' Filed To Save Limitation: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, filed without the award itself, would not be a valid filing. Justice Prasad stated that without the Award, the challenge would become meaningless because unless the award is perused by the court, it cannot adjudicate upon the appropriateness and correctness of the award. An application under Section 34 of the Act, filed without an award and admittedly without a...

Arbitral Tribunal Not Bound By Strict Rigors Of CPC, Amendment Permissible At Any Stage Of Proceedings: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary has held that the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked for interfering with an interim order only in exceptionally rare cases. Additionally, the court held that Arbitral Tribunals are not bound by the strict rigours of CPC and an amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Brief Facts: ...

Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable Against Order Under O.VII R.10 CPC: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench comprising of Justice Arun Palli and Justice Vikram Aggarwal has held that an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable against an order passed under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC directing the return of a petition filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for presentation to the appropriate court. Brief Facts: The appellant, M/s...

Procedural Impediments In Govt Machinery Not 'Sufficient Cause' For Condoning Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya has held that procedural impediments in the government machinery are not a 'sufficient cause' for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Additionally, the court held that the conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors in condoning delay. Brief Facts: The present appeal has been filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...

S. 16 Arbitration Act | Challenge To Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Impermissible After Submitting Statement Of Defence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after the submission of the statement of defence. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case in which the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal after submitting its statement of defence. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the objection and subsequently passed an award. However, the District Judge set aside this award, and this decision...

Can Arbitral Awards Be Modified Under S. 34 & S.37 Of Arbitration Act? Supreme Court Refers To 5 Judge Bench

The Supreme Court today (January 23) referred to a 5 judge constitution bench the issue of whether Courts have the power to modify an arbitral award under S. 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan directed that while considering the scope of powers of the Court to modify arbitral awards, an examination of the scope and contours of S. 34 and 37 will also be needed. The Court would also need to see...