ARBITRATION
Reference Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act Should Be Filed Within 120 Days From Date Of Service Of Summons: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar has held that a reference application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should have been filed within a period of 120 days from the date of service of summons to the defendant, which was long passed before 20.03.2019. Thus, where the reference application under Section 8 of the Act was made long after the expiry of the outer limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons, such a reference ...
[Arbitration Act] Friendly Consultation Necessary Before Issuing Section 21 Notice: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of J. C. Hari Shankar has held that in the present case there is no scope for negotiation between the parties, much less friendly negotiations. Brief facts of the case: The present dispute arises vis-à-vis a Lease Deed dated 30.07.2021, in which certain premises were leased by the petitioner to the respondent. Article 16 of the deed states that parties should resolve disputes by arbitration. Then, the petitioner addressed various emails to the respondent...
Arbitration Act: Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2024
As the year 2024 nears its end, LiveLaw brings to you a summary of important Supreme Court judgments of the year rendered in connection with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The same are as follows:1. Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Modified Under Sections 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme CourtCase: S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14]In this case, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol reiterated that any attempt to “modify an...
Award Is Time-Barred U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Due To Petitioner's Failure To Confirm Award Receipt On Affidavit: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has affirmed that in absence of any positive affirmation on affidavit from the petitioner as to when the award was received, the Court cannot accept the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that as soon as the award was received it was filed by the petitioner. Brief Facts: The petitioner has approached the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an award passed by the arbitrator...
Court In Exercise Of Supervisory Jurisdiction Shall Not Interfere With Arbitral Award, Limited Scope Of Interference: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati held that it is a well settled law that the interpretation of the clause of Agreement by the Arbitrator shall not be open to judicial interference unless it is demonstrated before the Court that the interpretation put by the Arbitral Tribunal was perverse. Additionally, the court held that if the view taken by the Arbitrator is logical and acceptable merely because two views are possible the Court...
S.12(5) Of A&C Act Provides For Agreement In Writing, Novation Can't Be Allowed Only Because Of Appointment Of Arbitrator At First Instance: Patna HC
The Patna High Court Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran has held that the proviso to Section 12(5) specifically provided for a waiver by an express agreement in writing. When the statute provides for an express agreement in writing there can be no novation of the agreement found, by reason only of the appointment of an Arbitrator at the first instance. Brief Facts: The present dispute arose with respect to an agreement entered by the petitioner pursuant to a successful bid...
Remedy Under A&C Act Is In Addition To Remedies Under Special Statutes, But Once Elected Other Remedies Are Barred For Same Dispute: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Krishna Rao has observed that the remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in addition to the remedies available under other special statutes and the availability of alternative remedies is not a bar to the entertaining of a petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But once elected, then the other remedy will not lie in respect of the same dispute. Brief Facts: The Defendant is a...
Award Passed By Ineligible Arbitrator Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Jammu And Kashmir HC
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has held that award passed by an ineligible arbitrator is liable to be set 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 by which the claimant has been has been held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.25,20,969/ along with interest @8% per annum. Petitioners started purchasing...
Termination Of Mandate Of Arbitral Tribunal Results In Waste Of Time, Resources And Money, Court Allowed Petition U/S 29A (4) And (5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal have invested a lot of time, effort and energy in the arbitral proceedings. The essence of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a litigant-centric process to expedite the disposal of cases and reduce the cost of litigation. Also, the said delay of four and a half months in filing the present petition is not an inordinate delay to direct that the mandate of the Sole...
Restraining Party From Participating In Any Tender Process U/S 9 of Arbitration Act Will Actually Thwart Competition: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that if the respondent is denied participating in any tender process and ultimately, in the arbitration proceedings and then in the award, it is held that the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, then irreparable loss will be caused to the respondent. The court held that restraining the respondent from participating in the bid will actually thwart competition. Additionally, the court held that it is not...
Memorandum Of Family Settlement Did Not Require Registration: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee has held that the Single Judge has, without interfering with the factual findings arrived at by the learned Arbitrator, correctly applied the settled legal position to the MFS, by holding that the same being a record of prior oral partition of the properties between all the sons of late Mr. Amarnath Bajaj, was only a Memorandum regarding the existing settlement between the parties. Moreover, the court held that...
Sufficiency Of Reasons Over Number Of Days Is Considered While Determining Plea Of Condonation Of Delay U/S 37(1)(2) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any plausible reasons for the delay caused in filing the present appeal. Also, there was not any exceptional circumstance(s) which precluded the appellant from filing the present appeal during the prescribed statutory period. The same is of vital importance as it is not merely the number of days of delay, which would be material for considering the application...