Arbitrator Nominated U/S 18(3) MSMED Act Erred In Deciding Merits After Finding Respondent Was Not MSME: Madras HC Upholds Setting Aside Of Award

The Madras High Coury bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan has held that an Arbitrator ought not to decide the case on merits after coming to a conclusion that the respondent was not a Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and therefore not entitled to invoke the machinery under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The court upheld the setting aside of the award passed by the Arbitrator.Brief Facts M/s. Sunwin Papers (Respondent)...

Challenge To Award U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Without Award Itself Being Filed Would Not Be A Valid Filing: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is for challenging the Award. It cannot be said that a challenge to the Award without the award itself being filed would be a valid filing. Without the Award, the challenge would become meaningless because unless the Award is perused by the Court, it cannot test or adjudicate on the correctness of the Award. Brief Facts This is an application...

Requirement Of Serving Notice On Other Party For Appointment Of Arbitrator Is Dispensed With In Statutory Arbitration: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the arbitration proceedings under consideration is not a commercial arbitration, but a statutory arbitration. The Arbitrator is appointed pursuant to the provisions of Section 84(5) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The appointment of the Arbitrator is made by the State Government on behalf of the Central Government. The argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the...

Award In Which Serious Allegations Of Fraud Are Not Decided Must Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court Bench of Chief Justice SUNITA AGARWAL and Justice PRANAV TRIVEDI affirmed that if serious allegations of fraud are raised that the arbitration agreement was entered into by fraud and collusion and such allegations are not decided by the Arbitrator while passing an award, such an award is liable to set aside on the ground of patent illegality under section 34 of the Arbitration Act Brief Facts The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 28th October 2024 To 3rd November, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX 1. Atul Pratap Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 3 Others, 2024:AHC:167917-DB 2. State Of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others v. M/S Virat Construction, 2024:AHC:171241-DB 3. NARESH KUMAR BAJAJ v. BUNGE INDIA PVT. LTD., 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1182 4. The State of H.P. & Anr. V. M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd, OMP(M) No. 74 of 2023 5. INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION V.SPRING TRAVELS PVT LTD, 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1191 6....

Court U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act Only Checks For Existence Of Agreement, Jurisdictional Questions To Be Decided By Arbitrator: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe affirmed that Sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides that the Arbitral Tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, “including any objections” with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Section 16 is an inclusive provision, which would comprehend all preliminary issues touching upon the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. The issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would be required to...

Parties To Lis Should Not Be Appointed As Receiver Without Consent Of Other Parties: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe And Justice J.Sreenivas Rao held that impartiality is an essential attribute of a Receiver. Therefore, normally one of the parties to a lis should not be appointed as Receiver without consent of the other parties unless a very special case is made out. Brief Facts This appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act') has been filed against the order ...

Government Entity Can't Be Given Differential Treatment While Staying Operation Of Arbitral Award : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court disapproved of a High Court's decision to exempt a government entity from depositing other amounts in addition to the arbitral award amount as a condition precedent for seeking a stay on the enforcement of the award just because the government entity was not a flight risk.The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the law qua arbitration proceedings cannot be differently applied merely because of the status of...

Composite Reference May Be Made When Two Contracts Are So Intertwined That Separate Arbitral Proceedings Would Prejudice Parties: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya affirmed that when two or more contracts are so intertwined with each other so as to prejudice the parties should separate arbitrations be held, a composite reference of both the contracts can be made to the Arbitrator. Brief Facts The present application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arises out of a dispute pertaining to two different agreements between the parties. The first agreement,...

Understanding Arbitration And Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015: Whether Retrospective Or Prospective In Nature

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 marks a watershed moment in the history of Arbitration in India. The idea of the Amendment germinated in a Law Commission Report submitted in 2014 which recommended an overhaul of the current framework of the Arbitration.[1] The Amendment aimed to reduce judicial interference and ensure the timely resolution of the Arbitration matters by amending sections 9, 11, 17, 34 and 36 of the Act. However, the amendment brought in uncertainty...

Ban Imposed U/S 69 Of Partnership Act Has No Application To Arbitral Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the bar of Section 69 of the Partnership Act does not come within the expression “other proceedings” as used in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act. Therefore, the ban imposed under Section 69 has no application to the arbitral proceedings.Brief FactsThe Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of the Claimant, partner seeking to challenge the Award dated 28.04.2017...

Rajasthan High Court Holds Arbitral Award To Be Patently Illegal Due To Concealment Of Material Facts, Violation Of HC Order

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar has held that it was the bounden duty of the respondent to apprise the Arbitral Tribunal about the dismissal of the writ petition. Non-disclosure of the same, tantamount to grave misconduct on part of the respondent. Additionally, the court observed that the use of the word 'however' does not mean that the decision that Steering Group had no jurisdiction to extend the concession period becomes...