Issue Related To Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Cannot Be Decided Ex-Parte, Without Hearing Respondent: Delhi High Court

A Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that the District Judge should not have decided the issue related to the existence of an arbitration agreement ex-parte, without calling upon the respondent to give its stand on the same.Additionally, the court held that an arbitration agreement, by virtue of the presumption of separability, survives the principal contract in which it was contained.Brief Facts: The dispute arose with respect to a lease deed...

Violation Of Provisions Of Arbitration Act Or MSMED Act Can Be Adjudicated By Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

An Orissa High Court bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra has dismissed a writ petition upon holding that the petitioner, without availing the efficacious statutory remedy u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act had approached the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for which the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to entertain it.Additionally, the court held that violation of any provisions of the Arbitration Act and/or the MSMED Act can be effectively adjudicated...

Arbitration Act | Courts' Jurisdiction Under Sections 34 and 37 Do Not Extend To Modifying Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Reiterates

Recently, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle laid down in National Highways Authority of India vs. M. Hakeem & Another that the jurisdiction of the Courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) will not extend to modifying an arbitral award.The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing the case dealing with the land acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956. Dissatisfied with the Arbitral...

Additional Evidence Can Only Be Allowed In Exceptional Circumstances While Deciding Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey has held that additional evidence not forming part of the arbitral record can be allowed to be given only in exceptional circumstances while hearing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: The petitioner challenges an order passed by the commercial court by which an application under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was allowed. The petitioner submitted that respondent had filed an...

Concept Of Appointing Named Arbitrator Who Is An Interested Party Is No Longer Sustainable: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar has held that the concept of appointing a named Arbitrator, who himself is an interested party, is no longer sustainable. Brief Facts: The dispute arose with respect to a contract executed between the parties for the construction and renovation of the Jummagad Small Hydro Project. The period of completion was fixed at 15 months from the date of the Agreement. Due to the failure of the applicants to complete the...

Can HC Appoint Sole Arbitrator When Arbitration Clause Provides For Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator ? Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court on Monday ( January 20) agreed to consider the issue of whether the High Court can appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 if the arbitration agreement between parties provides for unilateral appointment in violation of the decision in CORE v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the order of the Patna High Court which refused to appoint an arbitrator under S. 11(6) of...

Award Passed After Inordinate And Unexplained Delay Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts The present petition has been filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against an award passed by the Arbitrator on September 30, 2019. The petitioner submitted that delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside even without going into the...

Calcutta High Court Directs South Eastern Railway To Refund Additional 20% Surcharge Levied On Consignment

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar has held that an impugned judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata whereby the appellant's claim for refund of 20% surcharge was refused is erroneous in law and perverse. Court said that the tribunal overlooked the obvious legal effect of the Circulars and Goods Tariff documents before it, which were the only documents which would have any bearing on the adjudication. Thus the court...

'Arbitrator Can Only Decide On Point Which Is Referred To Tribunal, Not Entire Dispute': Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court Bench of Justice Dr A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. held that if the parties choose to refer to a singular point for arbitration, then the arbitral tribunal cannot proceed to decide on all disputes. On the contrary, if the parties agree to arbitrate on the entire disputes, then the arbitral tribunal shall have jurisdiction to decide the entire dispute and not a specific dispute. Additionally, the court held that clause 25.2 provided in the...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: [13th January-19th January 2025]

High Courts Calcutta High Court Section 8 Application Must Be Filed Before Or Simultaneously With Written Statement: Calcutta High Court Case Title: Smt. Gitarani Maity -vs- 1A. Mrs. Krishna Chakraborty and others Case Number: FAT No. 308 of 2023 The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Subhendu Samanta held that when no application for reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is made by either party, the civil...

Serving Signed Copy Of Award To Employee Of Party Does Not Constitute Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that service of a signed copy of an award on an employee of a party to an arbitration agreement is not a valid service under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts The respondent and the appellant had business dealings. Dispute arose between them and an arbitration clause was invoked. The arbitrator passed an award granting relief to the claimant. The appellants argued that they were...

Referral Courts At Post-Award Stage Must Protect Parties From Being Forced To Arbitrate Non-Arbitrable Claims: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while refusing to appoint an arbitrator in a Section 11 petition, has held that the referral court in a post-award stage must protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when, after prime facie scrutiny of the facts the claims are found to be non-arbitrable. The court applied the 'eye of the needle' test, which allows the referral court to reject arbitration in exceptional circumstances where the claims are deadwood. ...