Quarterly Digest Of Arbitration Cases (July-September 2024)

Supreme Court Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445 Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) called upon the Bar to urge only the legally permissible grounds in the arbitration proceedings...

Court Under S.9 Of Arbitration Act Can Grant Interim Measure To Protect Property From Being 'Wasted' While Hearing Appeal U/S 37: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the court in the exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, is not obligated to consider the merits or otherwise of the facts as stated by the litigants. Suffice it to state that the High Court under Section 9 of the Act is empowered to exercise jurisdiction as an interim measure to protect the property, items or goods from being wasted.Brief FactsThe present appeal was filed under...

Pre-Arbitral Resolution Clauses Are Directory, Not Mandatory, Especially in Cases Requiring Urgent Adjudication: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that any pre-condition in an arbitration agreement obliging one of the contracting parties to either exhaust the pre-arbitral amicable resolution avenues or to take recourse to Conciliation are directory and not mandatory. Additionally, the court held that the disputes between the parties require urgent adjudication, it would be wholly untenable to compel the parties to go through the motions of conciliation/DAB proceedings...

Stamp Act Not Enacted To Arm Litigant With “Weapon Of Technicality”: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has observed that “the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments and it has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to counter and oppose the case of its adversary.” Brief Facts: The Petitioner had sought cancellation of a sale deed executed by her in favour of the Respondent in an arbitration proceeding. The Respondent filed a counterclaim to...

Eviction Order Under Public Premises Act Doesn't Bar Arbitration For Contractual Disputes : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act would not come in the way while invoking the arbitration clause upon filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator to decide contractual disputes.The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when the agreement entered between the parties specifically...

Non-Compete Clause Is Invalid Post-Termination Of Contract As It Results In Restraint Of Trade: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Injunction

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil has held that though a non-compete clause can operate validly during the term of the agreement. But it would not be valid post-termination of the agreement as it would result in restraint of trade prohibited by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Additionally, the court noted that it is required to consider the legal effect of Clause 3 of the MSA after its termination. This can be examined in...

Standard Is Higher For Post-Award Section 9 Relief, Order To Deposit Amount Not Passed In Routine Manner: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Hari Shankar held that the standard required to be met by a post-award Section 9 relief is higher than that required by pre-award Section 9 reliefs. In this case, interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was sought to secure the awarded amount. Brief Facts This matter is between National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), the petitioner and IRB Vadodara Super Express Tollways Pvt. Ltd. (IRB), the respondent. The...

When SLP Dismissal Order Is Non-Speaking, Review U/S 17 Of Arbitration Act Permissible: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that if an order of dismissal of the SLP is a non-speaking order and no reasoning has been given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for the same, then review of the order challenged is permissible. Brief Facts In the present case two applications have been filed against orders passed under section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act. The modification of the ad interim order passed on May 2, 2024 was sought. This order was passed during the...

Article 227 Is A Constitutional Provision Which Remains Untouched By Non-Obstante Clause Of S. 5 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances, what is important to note is that though petitions can be filed under Article 227 against judgments allowing or dismissing first appeals under Section 37 of the Act, yet the High Court would be extremely circumspect in interfering with the same, taking into account the statutory...

Interference Under Article 227 Is Permissible Only If Order Of Arbitrator Is Completely Perverse And Illegal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held that judicial interference under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in the arbitral matters should be limited and confined to exceptional cases. In the present case, a petition under article 227 was filed by the petitioner, Dr. Rajan Jaiswal in which the order passed by the Sole Arbitrator on September 24,2024 was challenged. The arbitrator dismissed the application to submit additional documents on the ground that no sufficient...

Right To Seek Reference To Arbitration U/S 8 Can Be Waived At Instance Of Defendant: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has held that a Defendant (in a civil suit) has the right to withdraw an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and submit to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The court held that when the Defendant (herein, the Respondent) withdrew the application seeking a reference to arbitration, the Plaintiff (herein, the Appellant) had no legal right to oppose the...

Arbitral Award Based On Law Prevailing At Time Of Proceedings Cannot Be Held To Be Illegal Due To Subsequent Apex Court Ruling: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, held that if parties were allowed to reopen concluded arbitrations based on new judicial rulings, it would lead to a flood of claims seeking to modify or overturn arbitral awards. Moreover, the retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos. Arbitrators make decisions based on the legal framework and precedents available at the time of the arbitration. Expecting them to foresee and...