Settlement With Concessionaire Doesn't Erase NHAI's Role In Dispute: Delhi High Court Dismisses Substitution Petition

The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting the plea of National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) to substitute itself with a special purpose vehicle (SPV) in an ongoing arbitration initiated by CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (CFM ARC). The court held that the substitution could prejudice claimants' rights and that court's intervention under Article under 227 of the Indian Constitution is permitted only in exceptional rarity. Justice...

Power To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Lies With Civil Court Of Original Jurisdiction, Not Appointing Court: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Employees State Insurance (ESI) Corporation. ESI had challenged an order passed by the Civil Court allowing the application seeking extension of the arbitrator's mandate. Justice P. Sam Koshy held that the mandate of the arbitrator under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be extended by the court as defined under section 2(1)(e) which expressly included the city civil ...

'Sum' U/S 31(7)(b) A&C Act Excludes Pendente Lite Interest Unless Expressly Included: Delhi High Court In Award Execution Plea Against BSNL

The Delhi High Court held that if pre-award or pendente lite interest is not added to the principal amount in an arbitral award or on appeal, then post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) cannot be charged on it.Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the decree-holder's contention that the Supreme Court's use of the phrase 'statutory interest' entitled it to post-award interest on both principal and pendente lite interest. An arbitral award dated 26.09.2000 directed BSNL to pay over INR 6.07...

Arbitrator Is The Master of Evidence; Court In Appeal Cannot Reassess Facts: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently reiterated that an arbitrator is the master of both the quantity and quality of evidence, and therefore the court, while exercising appeal or supervisory jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate factual findings recorded in an arbitral award. The court emphasized that it does not sit as a court of appeal over the findings of the learned Arbitrator and its role under Section 34 is 'restrictive jurisdiction' and it cannot travel beyond the four corners of it. A...

Dispute Over Property Used Exclusively For Trade Constitutes Commercial Dispute Even If Situated In Residential Area: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that a dispute arising from a lease agreement under which premises were used actually used for running a retail showroom qualifies as a commercial dispute under section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 even if the property is situated in a residential zone under the Municipal Law. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar set aside the Patiala Court's decision of returning the plaint on the ground that...

Order Refusing To Terminate Arbitration Is Not An Interim Award: Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge U/S 34 A&C Act

The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) challenging an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by which it had refused to terminate the ongoing proceedings holding that the order was merely a prima facie view, interlocutory one and not an arbitral award capable of being challenged. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that a company's invocation of arbitration cannot be treated as non est merely because it...

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Rewrite Executed Contract Using Internal Notings: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Award Against Konkan Railway

The Bombay High Court set aside a majority arbitral award that had directed Konkan Railway to bear Royalty Charges for earth used in a Madhya Pradesh project holding that the arbitral tribunal acted in contravention of the contractual terms and committed patent illegality by relying on internal tender committee minutes to infer a different intention of the parties. Justice R.I. Chagla held that once the contract placed royalty liability on the contractor, the tribunal could not rewrite...

Multiple Remand Orders U/S 37 A&C Act “Unworkable” Without Reversing Findings On Merits: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court held that multiple remand orders issued by courts under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) without disturbing or reversing the findings on merits recorded by earlier Single Judges were incapable of implementation. The court found the situation unprecedented and unusual holding that the statutory scheme of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not permit a wholesale de novo remand unless the appellate court first reverses the...

Tariff During Registration Was To Remain Fixed For 25 Years; CSPDCL Waived Its Rights: Delhi High Court Allows IREDA's Appeal Over GBI Scheme

The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that under the Generation Based Incentive Scheme (GBI) Scheme, 2010 by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the tariff at the time of registration of project would remain constant for a period of 25 years and any upward revision of tariff by State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (“SERC”) from back date shall not be counted. The Court denied relief to Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co Ltd. in...

Suspension Of Proceedings By Arbitrator For Non-Payment Of Revised Fees Amounts To Effective Withdrawal From Office: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that an arbitrator who suspended the proceedings indefinitely on the ground of non-payment of revised fees and thereafter failed to conduct hearings must be deemed to have withdrawn from office under section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The court further held that the arbitrator's mandate had also expired by efflux of time under section 29A of the Arbitration Act thereby necessitating the appointment of a substitute ...

Award Holder Cannot Claim Compound Interest When Tribunal Grants Only Simple Interest In Arbitral Award: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court set aside an order of the Commercial Court, Shillong which had accepted the calculation of the award holder's method of calculating interest and directed Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) to pay the remaining amount under an arbitral award. The Court held that the Executing Court had effectively modified the award by permitting computation of compound interest when the award simply contemplated only simple interest. Justice B. Bhattacharjee held that...

Delhi High Court Revives Motorola's 17-Year-Old Dispute With MTNL Over Arbitral Award Amounting To $8,768,505

The Delhi High Court allowing a Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) appeal filed by MTNL against an arbitral award passed in favour of Motorola amounting to ~USD 8,768,505 has revived a 17-year-old between the parties. The Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar set aside the judgment passed by a Single Judge of the Court in 2017 whereby the arbitral award was upheld. The Court remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Single...