Order Passed U/S 11 Cannot Be Recalled If Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists To Justify Reference Of Parties To Arbitration: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an order passed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act on the basis of an arbitration clause cannot be recalled merely on the ground that reply given to a notice under section 21 was suppressed. Brief Facts The present application has been filed seeking recall of an order dated August 30, 2024 passed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The order is sought to be recalled on primarily three grounds: ...

Petition U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Entertained After Lapse Of 3 Yrs From Date Of Cause Of Action Arising: J&K High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan has held that the petition under section 11 of the Arbitration Act cannot be entertained after lapse of 3 years from the date of cause of action having arisen. Brief Facts The petitioner is a private limited company has filed this petition under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute arising out of construction contract awarded by the respondents in...

Interpretation Of Contractual Stipulations Must Be Done To Give Full Effect To Arbitration Agreement: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that it is a well-established principle of law if there is any contractual stipulation between the parties which under-mines the scope of the arbitration clause. Then, the same will be given an interpretation in the manner which gives full effect to the arbitration agreement between the parties. Brief Facts: The dispute arises with respect to a purchase order for supply of certain drugs to the respondent for the sum...

Findings Of Calcutta HC Cannot Be Challenged Before Courts At Patna After Objections Over Jurisdiction Were Dismissed: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar has held that the findings of the Calcutta High Court cannot be challenged in the Courts at Patna. Additionally, the court noted that the respondent had first approached the Calcutta High Court by preferring an application under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act would be attracted, and subsequent applications would not be maintainable before the Courts at Patna. Also, the court held that on the...

[Arbitration Act] S.2(1)(f) Is Non-Derogable, Applicability Cannot Be Excluded Even By Mutual Consent Of Parties: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration Act which defined the International Commercial Arbitration is a non derogable provision and its applicability cannot be excluded even by mutual consent of the parties. Brief Facts This petition has been filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against two awards passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner contended that the petitioner is a resident of Kenya ...

Delhi High Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Gas Supply Dispute, Invalidates Previous Arbitration Clause In View Of CORE Judgment

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that the arbitration agreement which contemplated the appointment of the sole Arbitrator to be made out of a panel of three persons chosen by the petitioner was no longer valid in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company. Consequently, the court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Claim Of Rs.15 Lakh Awarded By Arbitral Tribunal Due To Lack Of Evidence

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Sachin Datta held that after persuading the Supreme Court to refer the disputes to arbitration, it is not open for the appellant to now question the validity of the reference. Additionally, the court held that the respondent had not placed any evidence on record to establish the cost of such construction. Therefore, the amount awarded against Claim no.2 was without any evidence and thus may be set aside. Brief Facts: ...

Court Not Having Jurisdiction To Entertain Application U/S 34 Cannot Go Into Merits Of Award: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that once the court comes to the conclusion that it didn't have jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it cannot go into the merits of the case. This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act arose out of an order passed by the District Judge by which objections preferred under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the award were rejected. The district...

Ineligibility Of Arbitrator Cannot Be Challenged First Time Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of of Chief justice Mr. K.R.Shriram and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy has held that the ineligibility of the Arbitrator cannot be challenged for the first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act when there were enough opportunities to challenge the same in the earlier proceedings. Brief Facts This appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order passed by the Learned Single Judge. An arbitral award dated...

Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Post Expiry Of Tenancy Agreement: Allahabad High Court

While entertaining a revision petition related to a tenancy agreement, the Allahabad High Court has held that a clause for arbitration cannot be invoked for any disputes that arise after the contract has come to an end.“… it clearly transpires that existence of a contract is necessary for invocation of arbitration clause prescribed under the agreement as the clause would perish with the contract,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.Factual BackgroundThe revisionist and opposite party entered into a tenancy...

Two Arbitration Petitions For Same Relief Cannot Be Filed: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Chief Justice Mr. Ramesh Sinha has held that two arbitration petitions for the same relief cannot be filed. Brief Facts This petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The applicant is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act 1973. The society comprises of lease owner traders of shops in Himalaya Complex, Supela Bhilai. The society has been formed to secure and promote...

"Maintainability" And "Jurisdiction" Cannot Be Conflated While Deciding Application U/S 20 Of Arbitration Act, 1940: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Amit Borkar has held that maintainability and jurisdiction cannot be used interchangeably as they connote different things. Lack of jurisdiction results in the nullity of proceedings, as the court inherently lacks authority to adjudicate. Non-compliance with maintainability bars leads to dismissal without deciding the merits of the case but does not affect the court's inherent power. Brief Facts: The petitioner is challenging the order dated...