MSEFC Must Decide Question On Limitation Before Adjudicating Dispute On Merits: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam. Koshy, while hearing a petition filed under Article 227, has held that the issues of maintainability, particularly the question of limitation, are to be decided by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) before proceeding to adjudicate the dispute on merits. Facts: In a common order dated 15/06/2024, the MSEFC, in a section 16 petition filed by the petitioner, has held that the claims of the claimant were barred...

Special Treatment Cannot Be Given To Govt For Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Ms. Justice Rekha Palli and Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee has affirmed that just because the appellant is government that doesn't mean that a special treatment will be given while condoning the delay in filing the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.Brief FactsThis appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Ld. single judge has rejected the petition under section 34 of the...

Arbitrators Cannot Pass Binding And Enforceable Orders Unilaterally Determining Their Fees: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has affirmed that Arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their own fees. A unilateral determination of fees violates the principles of party autonomy and the doctrine of the prohibition of in rem suam decisions, ie., the arbitrators cannot be a judge of their own private claim against the parties regarding their remuneration.Brief FactsDispute having arisen between the parties...

Filing Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act Before Statement On Substance Of Dispute Doesn't Waive Right To Invoke Arbitration Clause: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh has held that if an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute, the party cannot be deemed to have waived its right to invoke the arbitration clause. The court observed that the filing of the written statement and application for reference under Section 8 simultaneously cannot lead to an inference that the Appellant had...

Court Cannot Go Into Merits While Enforcing Foreign Award U/S 48 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S Doctor has held that jurisdiction of enforcement court under section 48 of the Arbitration is very limited and while enforcing the award the court cannot go into the merits of the case. Brief Facts This petition has been filed seeking enforcement of an award under part II of the Arbitration Act. This award was passed by an International Court Arbitration, London by which the petitioner was awarded a sum of Euro 2.45 million and costs. ...

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Arbitral Award, Only To Circumvent Statutory Requirement Of S.19 Of MSMED Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a writ petition challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSFEC), has held that invoking the writ jurisdiction to challenge an arbitral award would circumvent the statutory requirement of pre-deposit u/s 19 of the MSMED Act, and would amount to defeating the legislative intent. Submissions: The senior counsel for the Petitioner made the following submissions: A...

Delhi High Court Stays Arbitral Proceedings Where Petitioner's Defence Was Struck-Off Due To Non-Payment Of Arbitral Fees

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula has held that the striking off of the defence of the Petitioner for non-payment of arbitral fees is a drastic measure that exceeds the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The Court observed that under Section 38(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Tribunal should allow the proceedings to continue with the Claimant bearing the costs initially, subject to recovery in the final award. The court, exercising its supervisory ...

Liberty To File Fresh Application Not Fresh Cause Of Action, Limitation U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Extended: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee have held that mere liberty to file a fresh application before the competent Court does not amount to a fresh cause of action occurring in the appellant's favour. The relevant date(s) of the Award always remained unchanged, and therefore even after availing the benefit of the period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the appellant's application was barred by limitation. Additionally, the court held...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [18th November To 24th November, 2024]

Supreme Court S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court Case Title: GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS SOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 891 In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis...

S.34 Application Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because Approach Of Court Should Be Not To Interfere With Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee have held that the Arbitral Award should not be interfered with lightly, the same does not imply that applications filed under Section 34 ought to be rejected only on the grounds that the approach of the Court should be not to interfere with the award. Additionally, the court held that both the parties, in their respective applications under Section 34 of the Act, raised grounds of patent illegality amongst...

Private Contracts Between Parties For Appointment Of Arbitrator Different From Statutory Appointment Of Arbitrators: Allahabad High Court

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that cases where appointment of arbitrators is through contracts which contemplate such appointment and statutory appointment of arbitrators are two separate classes to cases and the same are distinguishable on facts.National Highways Authority of India approached the High Court against order of the Additional District Judge, POCSO Act, Bijnor under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby it was held that the compensation...

Petition Filed After Expiry Of Limitation Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Entertained Unless Sufficient Cause Is Shown: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot be entertained which is filed beyond the prescribed period of 3 months under section 34(3) of the Act in the absence of sufficient cause being shown. Brief Facts Award was passed on 06.11.2023 in favour of the non-applicant/respondent by the learned Sole Arbitrator. The State of Himachal Pradesh, feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award, has...