ARBITRATION
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. ...
Section 13 Of Commercial Courts Act Doesn't Provide Any Independent Right To Appeal In Arbitration Matters: Delhi High Court Reiterates
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that an order which neither sets aside nor refuses to set aside the arbitral award, does not fall under the ambit of Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and is not appealable. The court observed that appeals in arbitration matters are maintainable only if expressly provided for in section 37/ 50 of the A&C Act. Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not confer ...
Power To Correct Computation Error U/S 33 Of Arbitration Act Can Be Exercised Suo Moto If No Application Is Filed Within 30 Days: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that power to correct computation error in the award under section 33 of the Arbitration Act can be exercised suo moto by the Arbitral Tribunal when no application is filed to this effect within 30 days.Brief FactsA work order was awarded to the claimant by the respondent under which the claimant undertook to construct a road from Gholpukur to Tekhali Bridge and its maintenance. Dispute arose under the contract and the...
[Seat vs. Venue] Designated “Seat” Of Arbitration Has Exclusive Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court Reiterates
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that once the “seat” of arbitration is designated in an agreement, it is to be treated as the exclusive jurisdiction for all arbitration proceedings. The Court referred to the 'Shashoua Principle', which propounds that when there is an express designation of a "venue" and no alternative seat is specified, the venue is considered the juridical seat of arbitration.The arbitration clause in the loan...
Arbitrator's Order Determining Substantive Rights Of Parties Constitutes “Award”, Amenable To Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that orders passed by the Arbitrator during the pendency of Arbitral proceedings, which finally determines any substantive rights of the parties, constitutes an interim Arbitral Award, and can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts The appellant, a Swiss company engaged in manufacturing mountaineering boots, entered into a contract with...
Irregularity & Curable Defect Cannot Be Grounds For Dismissal Of Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: J&K High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta held that the failure of the Chief Engineer to sign the pleadings, which were signed by the Garrison Engineer would only be an irregularity and a curable defect and would not entail dismissal of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act without providing opportunity to the appellants to correct the irregularity. Additionally, the court held that the defect was...
Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Petition, Party Must Use Remedy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that it cannot entertain a writ petition challenging an arbitral award, and the petitioner should challenge the award by taking recourse to appropriate remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: The present petition challenged an arbitral award passed pursuant to reference to arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act 2006. The Arbitral Tribunal consisted of a sole arbitrator appointed by the DIAC....
Expert Tribunal's Award Did Not Suffer From Patent Illegality, Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited, and the Court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to determine whether the award is good or bad.In the present case, the court held that the expert tribunals award did not suffer from patent illegality, and thus could not be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.Brief Facts: The...
Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 6th January To 12th January 2025
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside Awards Of Over Rs 46 Lakhs Passed Against UP Govt In Sham Arbitration Proceedings Case Details : STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER VERSUS R.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10212 OF 2014 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 45 The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 9) set aside two ex-parte arbitration awards on grounds of fraud played by the litigant who appointed sole arbitrators and conducted 'sham' arbitration proceedings in a...
Unilateral Appointment Clause Of Arbitrator Hinders Equal Participation Of Parties In Appointment Process: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that a clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the parties in the appointment process of arbitrators. Brief Facts: The parties entered into an agreement pursuant to the tender process initiated by the respondent....
Pendency Of Civil Or Criminal Litigation Between Partners Cannot Estop Either Partner From Invoking Arbitration Clause: Punjab and Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal has held that pendency of a civil and criminal litigation inter se partners, cannot estop one of the partners from invoking the arbitration clause or bar the reference of dispute for adjudication to an arbitrator for determination. Brief Facts: This petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties. The petitioner submitted that the...
Matter Relating To Partnership Act & Partnership Deed Where Third-Party Rights Are Involved Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench of Justice Anand Pathak held that when matter relates to Partnership Act and partnership deed and third-party rights are also involved then it cannot be referred to arbitration. Brief Facts: M/s Om Jai Gurudev is a partnership firm in which 11 partners existed initially. The partnership deed for the firm was constituted on 18.07.2017 and the deed was amended on 20.03.2019 wherein the firm was reconstituted and except the applicant and the...