Arbitration Act Sec. 11(6) Is Default Provision, Can't Override Agreed 3-Member Tribunal: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court on 20 August held that Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a default provision that can be invoked only when parties are unable to secure the appointment of an arbitrator through the procedure agreed upon in their contract, and cannot be used to replace an agreed three-member tribunal with a sole arbitrator. Justice Jaspreet Singh dismissed S. H. Infratech Pvt. Ltd's petition seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, holding that where a party...

Section 69 Partnership Act Does Not Bar Arbitration Without Dissolution Plea: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on 20 August observed that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which restricts suits by unregistered partnership firms to enforce contractual rights, does not bar arbitration between partners merely because dissolution of the partnership has not been sought. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt set aside the arbitral award in the dispute between Sandip Singla and Jagdeb Chand Gupta, holding that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the...

Reasonable Time To Appoint Arbitrator Cannot Be Decided By Counting Days After Notice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a party's reasonable time to appoint an arbitrator cannot be assessed merely by counting the days after a formal arbitration notice, and that courts must also consider earlier litigation, failed mediation and attempts to agree on an arbitrator. Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected a prematurity objection in a family partnership dispute and appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice (Retd.) Ravindra Bhat as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes...

Delhi High Court Says Writ Courts Should Not Pre-empt MSMED Arbitration, Dismisses BSNL Plea

On 26 August, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by the General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), challenging the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council's (MSEFC) reference of a dispute to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the consequential arbitration proceedings. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that writ courts should not pre-emptively interfere with arbitration proceedings under the Micro, Small and Medium...

Bombay High Court Restrains Ex-Kidzee Franchisee From Using 'KIDGEE' Or Similar Mark Pending Arbitration

The Bombay High Court on 25 August restrained Beauty Singh, a former franchisee of ZEE Learn Limited, from using “KIDZEE”, “KIDGEE” or any deceptively or phonetically similar name for her school pending arbitration. Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed ZEE Learn's petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which permits courts to grant interim measures in arbitration related disputes), holding that the trademark dispute arising from the parties' franchise agreement...

Rajasthan High Court Quashes ₹198.04 Cr. Award Against JDA, Says Arbitrator Rewrote Concession Agreement

The Rajasthan High Court on 17 August set aside an arbitral award granting Rs. 198.04 crore to Rohan Rajdeep Rajasthan Infra Project Limited against the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and the Rajasthan Government in connection with the Ghat Ki Guni BOT tunnel project. A Division Bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Taneja allowed JDA and the State's appeal and held that an arbitrator cannot shift contractual risks allocated to a developer or award compensation without...

MSME Registration Does Not Automatically Override Existing Arbitration Agreement: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 25 August held that registration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) does not by itself override an agreed contractual arbitration mechanism, where the statutory process before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has not actually been invoked. Justice Amit Borkar allowed Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited's application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Advocate...

J&K And Ladakh High Court Holds SIDCO MD Ineligible To Act As Arbitrator In Contract Dispute With UT

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on 21 August held that the Managing Director of J&K State Industrial Development Corporation (SIDCO) was ineligible to act as an arbitrator in a dispute between Abraq Infrastructures LLP and the Union Territory, as he was an employee of one of the respondents. Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar allowed Abraq Infrastructures LLP's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed a Retired District and...

Jharkhand High Court Rejects State's Challenge To Delhi As Arbitral Seat After 2.5 Years

The Jharkhand High Court on 20 August, dismissed the Jharkhand Road Construction Department's challenge to an Arbitral Tribunal's decision fixing Delhi as the seat of arbitration in its dispute with Ramky Infrastructure Limited. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen held that the Department's continued participation in the proceedings without a timely objection amounted to waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He explained: “The 'seat of arbitration' is the...

Court Holds Court Fee Cannot Be Retained For Non-Maintainable Appeal: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 6 August held that court fee paid for an appeal that is not maintainable cannot be retained by the State, as such collection would be without the authority of law and result in unjust enrichment. A Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K.K. Ramakrishnan refused to entertain J. Murugavel's appeal against Pichai, Proprietor of Vel Murugan Traders, filed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a final arbitral award....

Closure of Interim Pleas for Non-Payment of Arbitral Fees Not Appealable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 18 August held that an arbitral tribunal's order closing a party's interim relief applications and counterclaim for non-payment of arbitral fees is procedural and does not amount to an order granting or refusing interim relief appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed as non-maintainable the appeal filed by Orbit In-Te-Rio against American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd., while granting the former liberty to...

Foreign Award Can Be Enforced And Executed By High Court In A Single Proceeding: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21 August held that a foreign arbitral award can be enforced and executed by the High Court in the same proceeding without requiring a separate execution case before a subordinate court. Justice Vinay Saraf rejected the oral objections raised by Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd. to execution of the foreign award obtained by Moshers, holding that once a foreign award is declared enforceable under Sections 47 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it...