High Courts
Delhi High Court Confirms Arbitral Award Favoring Rama Constructions In Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Dispute
The Delhi High Court on 25 February, upheld an arbitral award granting Rs. 80.05 lakh along with 10% interest to Rama Constructions Company in a dispute arising from civil and electrical works executed at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Complex, New Delhi. Dismissing the Union of India's challenge, Justice Jasmeet Singh reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference, noting that the Arbitrator's findings were evidence-based and did not warrant interference under Section 34 of the...
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator In ₹91 Lakh Benetton–Gini and Jony Payment Dispute
The Delhi High Court has appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate a Rs. 91,21,454 dispute between global fashion brand Benetton India Pvt Ltd and children's apparel company Gini and Jony Ltd arising out of unpaid dues under a 2014 Distribution Agreement. The Court held that whether subsequent settlement agreements superseded the original contract and extinguished the arbitration clause must be decided by the arbitral tribunal and not at the stage of appointment. Justice Jasmeet Singh ruled...
Arbitrator Appointed By Agreed Institution Not Per Se Unilateral: Madras High Court
Drawing a clear distinction between unilateral appointments and institutional nominations, the Madras High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by an arbitral institution agreed upon by the parties cannot automatically be treated as a unilateral appointee, even if one side initiates the process. “The appointment of Arbitral Tribunal by an institution that is agreed upon between the parties per se cannot be dealt with in the same manner in which the Court deals with an unilateral...
Delhi High Court Dismisses IRCON Appeal Against Railway Construction Arbitral Award
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed an intra court appeal filed by IRCON International Limited, reiterating that appellate courts have very limited room to interfere in arbitration matters. The court held that the arbitral tribunal's findings on how the excavation was classified and whether payment was due for tie bolts were purely factual determinations, which cannot be reopened under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Division Bench of Justice C....
Bombay High Court Upholds ₹496.48 Crore Metro One Award, Strikes Down ₹248 Crore For Lack Of Evidence
The Bombay High Court has partly upheld the Rs. 496.48 crore arbitral award in favour of Mumbai Metro One Private Limited arising from the Metro Line 1 project, but has set aside nearly Rs. 248 crore awarded under three heads of damages, finding that those components were not backed by evidence. Justice Sandeep V. Marne underscored that courts are required to respect the finality of arbitral awards and cannot interfere lightly. At the same time, he made it clear that intervention is justified...
Appellate Court Cannot Reassess Valuation Findings in Arbitration Appeal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an arbitral award determining compensation under the National Highways Act cannot be interfered with in a Section 37 appeal merely because another view on valuation is possible. Dismissing two appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Justice Javed Iqbal Wani reiterated that Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides only a limited right of appeal. “Section 37 of the Act of 1996...
Bombay High Court Modifies Arbitral Order On TDR Sale, Upholds Stay On Termination In Redevelopment Dispute
The Bombay High Court has partly modified an arbitral tribunal's interim order in a redevelopment dispute, holding that the tribunal exceeded the scope of interim protection in prescribing the manner in which Transferable Development Rights (TDR) could be sold. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by landowner Khimchand Prithviraj Kothari against an interim order passed in favour of developer Earth Realtors. ...
MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Clause; Jurisdiction Lies Where Supplier Is Located: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that once a dispute is taken to a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act, jurisdiction to entertain challenges arising from those proceedings lies with courts at the location of the Council where the supplier is situated, even if the contract names a different arbitration seat. Dismissing the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, Justice Jasmeet Singh held, "Since it is the Facilitation Council at Panchkula,...
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award, Says SAIL Cannot Deduct CENVAT Credit Shortfall Without Contractual Clause
Reiterating that courts cannot rewrite commercial contracts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) to refund Rs. 1.40 crore deducted from a contractor's final bill over an alleged shortfall in Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC). Justice Avneesh Jhingan held that interpretation of contractual clauses lies within the domain of the arbitral...
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Award Ordering Yamaha To Repurchase Unsold Dealership Stock
Holding that an arbitral tribunal cannot “rewrite the bargain between the parties” or grant relief contrary to the contract, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the setting aside of an award that had directed India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. to take back unsold dealership stock and refund its price with 16% annual interest. Dismissing the dealer's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan held that the...
Venue Of Arbitration Is Seat In Absence Of Contrary Indication: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladkah High Court has recently reiterated that where an arbitration clause designates a particular place as the “venue” of arbitration and there is no contrary indication, such place must be treated as the “seat” of arbitration, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at that location."It is, thus settled that whenever there is mention of place of arbitration in an arbitration clause as being the venue of arbitration proceedings, it would really...