Bombay High Court Appoints Arbitrator In GE Power-Unistar Dispute Despite Defective Section 21 Notice

The Bombay High Court on 14 July held that a defective notice invoking arbitration does not invalidate the commencement of arbitral proceedings where the arbitration agreement has been invoked and the disputes between the parties are clearly identified. Justice Arun R. Pedneker appointed former Bombay High Court Judge Justice Anuja Prabhudessai as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between Unistar Metals Private Limited and GE Power Limited under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and...

Arbitrator's Hasty Closure of Evidence During COVID Violated Section 18, Vitiating Award: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has set aside an arbitral award after finding that the arbitrator unnecessarily hastened to close a party's right to lead evidence during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.The Court held that such treatment violated the requirement under Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to treat the parties equally and give each side a full opportunity to present its case. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray set aside...

Delhi High Court Says NHAI Cannot Avoid Payments After PCC Issuance, Upholds ₹411 Crore Escrow Awards

The Delhi High Court on 9 July held that a party cannot avoid contractual obligations arising from a Provisional Completion Certificate (PCC) after its issuance by subsequently keeping the certificate in abeyance. A Division Bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar dismissed two appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against lender banks led by South Indian Bank Limited. It observed: “The aforesaid conclusion of the learned Tribunal and the learned...

Party Aware Of Arbitration Can't Challenge Unilateral Arbitrator's Appointment For First Time In Appeal: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has held that a party that knew of arbitral proceedings, sought adjournments, and then remained ex parte cannot raise a challenge to the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator for the first time in a Section 37 appeal after remaining silent for nearly ten years. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed an appeal by Nirmal Datacomm Private Limited and others against an arbitral award directing them to pay Redington...

Relief Sought, Not Property Location, Decides Jurisdiction If Arbitration Seat Is Unspecified: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently held that territorial jurisdiction cannot be determined solely by the location of partnership properties or the registered office of a partnership firm where the partnership deed containing an arbitration clause does not specify the arbitral seat.Instead, the court held, the material facts constituting the foundation of the relief sought must determine jurisdiction.Justice Amit Borkar delivered the ruling while deciding a petition filed by Vinod Kumar Saraf...

Withdrawal Of Civil Suit Doesn't Extinguish Arbitration Agreement: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that withdrawal of an earlier civil suit without liberty to institute fresh proceedings does not extinguish the arbitration agreement or bar a subsequent petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for constitution of an arbitral tribunal. In doing so, the Court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, which involved the unconditional withdrawal of an earlier Section 11...

Requirement To File Commercial Suits Before Commercial Division Applies To Applications Too: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that the requirement to institute commercial disputes before its Commercial Division applies not only to suits but also to applications involving the specified value. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi clarified that Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 governs not only commercial suits but also applications, including petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It accordingly set aside the...

Arbitral Award Overlooking Enabling Statute Contravenes Fundamental Policy of Indian Law: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that overlooking the provisions of the enabling statute while passing an arbitral award is an act in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law. It said such a glaring contravention justifies interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, while upholding the setting aside of an arbitral award that had enhanced compensation for land acquired for the NH-47 bypass. Justice S. Manu observed, "Above all, the arbitrator has not...

Conflicting Dispute Resolution Clauses Should Be Interpreted in Favour of Arbitration: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently held that where a commercial contract contains conflicting dispute resolution clauses, courts should lean in favour of arbitration if the agreement, read as a whole, reflects the parties' intention to resolve disputes through arbitration. Justice M. W. Chandwani of the Nagpur bench delivered the ruling while deciding an application filed by Sri Buddha–SVEC JV against Western Coalfields Ltd. The court referred the parties to conciliation before Advocate...

Arbitral Tribunal Can Decide Claim Between Co-Respondents Under Tripartite Agreement: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal can decide a claim raised by one respondent against another under a tripartite agreement where the parties have agreed to refer all disputes arising out of the contract to arbitration. The court ruled that although the claim had been labelled a "counterclaim", it was, in substance, an independent contractual claim between parties to the same agreement. It also noted that Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 makes it...

Technical Jurisdiction Objections Cannot Defeat Merits Of Commercial Disputes Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court on 2 July held that a party cannot defeat adjudication of a commercial dispute on merits by raising a technical objection that it filed a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before a court without pecuniary jurisdiction. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed a writ petition filed by Gulab Chand Jain challenging the transfer of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur's challenge to an arbitral award directing it to pay Rs. 2.32 crore...

Individual Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed For MSME Disputes U/S 18 MSMED Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on 7 July held that a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council cannot refer disputes under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) to an individual arbitrator and must either decide the dispute itself or refer it to an arbitral institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services. A Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua set aside the ex parte arbitral award passed against Tynor Orthotics Pvt. Ltd. and...