Calcutta High Court
Power Of High Court To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Is “Co-Extensive” With Power To Appoint Arbitrator: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has held that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), an application under section 29A(4) seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitrator can be entertained by the High Court only and not by the Principal Civil Court or Commercial Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. Justice Shampa Sarkar held that while section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act...
Single Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Maintainable Against Composite Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that a single petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is maintainable challenging a composite arbitral award disposing of multiple references. A bench led by Justice Shampa Sarkar held that “the Court does not hesitate to hold that the learned arbitrator and the parties understood the proceeding before the learned arbitrator arising out of five references, to be one composite proceeding and the learned...
Plea Against Misuse Of Digital Signature Does Not Amount To Denying Existence Of Arbitration Agreement: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Krishna Rao, while referring parties to arbitration, has observed that if the Plaintiff alleges that its digital signatures were used without its consent, such an allegation of fraud does not amount to a denial of the existence of the arbitration agreement. Facts The Plaintiffs had filed an application praying for an interim order, whereas the Defendants had filed an application praying that the parties be referred to arbitration....
Court Hearing Appeal U/S 37 A&C Act Can Direct Furnishing Of Security Even Without Application U/S 9: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Arindam Mukherjee has held that while disposing of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the Court is empowered under Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) to impose conditions and direct the respondent to furnish security for the loan as per the Agreement, even in the absence of a formal application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, since such a course does not contravene any of the provisions of the Act. The...
Counterclaim In Arbitration Cannot Be Allowed After Commencement Of Claimant's Evidence: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has held that a counterclaim in arbitration proceedings cannot be allowed after the commencement of the claimant's evidence, as doing so would cause serious injustice to the other party. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution against an order passed by Arbitrator by which an application seeking amendment in the Statement of Defence (SoD) to include a counterclaim was rejected. ...
State Gains Revenue Only If Businesses Operate; Cancelling GST Registration On Procedural Grounds Serve No Purpose: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court stated that the state gains revenue only if business operates; GST registration cancellation on procedural grounds serves no purpose. Justice Aniruddha Roy stated that the cancellation of GST registration of the assessee on the procedural ground would not enure any benefit either to the revenue authority or to the assessee. On the contrary, if the GST certificate stands restored and the assessee is allowed to carry on its business, the State can earn revenue to...
Delivery Of Certified Copy Of Award After Signing & Authentication Constitutes Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that delivery of a certified copy of the award, signed by the members, when properly addressed, stamped, and sent by speed post with delivery confirmed by the postal department, amounts to effective service even if the original signed copy of the award is not dispatched. The present application has been filed under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking a declaration that the award dated 10.11.2020 is non-est and...
Proceedings Between Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate And Its Extension Are Not Void If Mandate Is Extended: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that proceedings conducted by the Arbitrator between the expiry of the mandate and its subsequent extension cannot be declared void once the application seeking extension is allowed. Upon extension, the mandate relates back to the date of expiry. The present application has been filed seeking extension of the Arbitrator's mandate. Earlier, the Respondent objected on the ground that the Arbitration continued the proceedings...
Income Tax | Interest Earned On Surplus Lending Funds Is Attributable To Banking Business, Qualifies For 80P Deduction: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court stated that interest earned on surplus lending funds is attributable to banking business, qualifies for 80P deduction under Income Tax Act. Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides 100% tax deductions to cooperative societies for income from specified activities. These activities commonly include marketing agricultural produce, purchasing agricultural supplies, processing products without power, offering banking services, and more. Chief Justice T.S....
Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Officer's ITC Finding Made Within Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court stated that writ not maintainable against officer's ITC finding made within jurisdiction. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that “Though, violation of principles of natural justice, and a challenge on jurisdictional issue can be maintained, such issue must, relate to an exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which it does not have, and not merely an error committed within its jurisdiction.” In this case, on the basis of audit observation under Section 65...
Reference To Dispute Resolution Board Not Mandatory Before Invoking S.11(6) Of Arbitration Act If It Is Not Constituted On Time: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a party cannot be compelled to approach the Dispute Resolution Board (DSB) for resolution of disputes first before invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act especially when the DSB was not constituted as per terms of the contract and its composition was not even communicated to the Petitioner within the stipulated time period after the execution of the contract therefore seeking...
Cause Of Action Arises From Clear Refusal To Perform Contractual Obligations, Not Mere Non-Performance: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that when there is a clear refusal by one of the parties to perform the terms of a contract, the cause of action arises from the date of such refusal, and not from the date of initial non-performance, especially where negotiations continued, implying that the parties possibly wanted to extend the time for performance. The present application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arose from an ...