Rejection Of Claims By Writ Court Over Disputed Issues Does Not Bar Reference To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when the claims of the petitioner are not adjudicated by writ courts and subsequently by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition on the ground that they involve disputed questions of fact and law which are beyond the remit of the court, and the petitioner is directed to invoke the alternative remedy of arbitration due to the undisputed existence of an arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to arbitration...

Mere Use Of Expression “Arbitration” Insufficient To Constitute A Binding Agreement U/S 7 Of A&C Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that mere use of the expression “Arbitration” in a clause will not automatically make the clause a binding arbitration agreement as contemplated under Section 7 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 unless there is a clear intent to refer disputes to Arbitration. The court observed that an arbitration agreement has to be couched not in precatory, but obligatory words. Although, there is no particular form or universally ...

Stock Exchange & Banking Channels Cannot Mask Sham Transactions Carried Out Through Bogus Capital Loss Claim Companies: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court held that stock exchange and banking channels cannot mask sham transactions carried out through bogus capital loss claim companies. Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that “the entire information contained in the investigation report was apprised to the assessee by the assessing officer and thereafter the show cause notices was issued for which the assessee' submitted their reply and in the reply they did not raise any issue that...

Mere Incorporation Of Investing Companies Under Companies Act Not Enough To Prove Genuineness Of Share Transactions: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court held that mere incorporation of investing companies under the Companies Act is not enough to prove the genuineness of share transactions. The bench opined that, admittedly, the shares were by way of a private placement. Though the investing companies might have been incorporated under the provisions of the Company's Act, that by itself will not validate the transaction. Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) stated that “though it can be...

Scheme Of Compromise Sanctioned By Court Under Companies Act Cannot Be Frustrated By Invoking Provisions Of SARFAESI Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a scheme of arrangement/compromise sanctioned under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be unilaterally frustrated by a secured creditor by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The application was filed, praying for the execution of an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement/ compromise under section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, as a deemed decree within the meaning of CPC, 1908. The applicant also requested the...

[Arbitration Act] S.34 Pleas Are Of Commercial Nature, Cannot Be Decided By Bench Having Ordinary Original Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai while deciding a Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) appeal, set aside an order passed in Section 34, ACA petition on the ground that the court passing it lacked the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The concerned judge had the power to determine only such applications under Section 34 which did not pertain to commercial matters, whereas the power to decide Section 34 applications of ...

Court Can Extend Mandate Of Arbitrator Multiple Times If Sufficient Cause Is Shown U/S 29A(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the courts are not prohibited from extending the mandate of the Arbitrator multiple times if sufficient cause is established under section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, it extended the mandate of the Arbitrator beyond the timeline set by the Supreme Court. This is the second filed by the Petitioner seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award In Favour Of Sourav Ganguly Over Termination Of Player Representation Agreement

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur dismissed a Section 34 petition filed against an arbitral award passed in favour of cricket player Sourav Ganguly (“Respondent”) by his former management agency, Precept Talent Management Ltd. (“Petitioner”). While upholding the Arbitral Award, the Court observed that the award was well reasoned and the views taken by the Arbitral Tribunal were plausible. Therefore, the Award did not warrant any interference by the Court. Facts ...

Impleading Non-Signatory Against Whom No Cause Of Action Is Disclosed Does Not Defeat Reference To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

The Division Bench of Calcutta High comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar while deciding an appeal under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) against the dismissal of an application for reference under Section 8, ACA observed that where a non-signatory party has been impleaded against whom no cause of action has been disclosed in the suit and who is a collateral beneficiary, the Court can refer the parties to arbitration. The Court noted that it was...

'When Pre-Cognizance Hearing U/S 223(1) BNSS Is Not Conducted, Further Proceedings Are A Nullity In Law': Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order taking cognizance of proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, upon observing that cognizance had been taken by the special court, without complying with the mandatory requirement of holding a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held: "In view of the above findings, the impugned order dated February 15, 2025, taking cognizance of...

Bar Against Even Number Of Arbitrators Is Not Attracted In Case Of Statutory Arbitration U/S 18(3) Of MSMED Act: Calcutta HC

A division bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justices Uday Kumar and Sabyasachi Bhattacharya in a notable judgment has observed that the bar restricting the number of arbitrators to even numbers, which is applicable when the parties themselves appoint arbitrators under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”), is not attracted to a statutory arbitration under Section 18(3), Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”). Thus, even if the number of...

Legal Heir Of Partner Can Seek Reference To Arbitration When Deed Provides For Partnership To Continue After Partner's Death: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has observed that where a partnership deed provides that the heir of the deceased shall inherit the share and the partnership will continue, then the legal heir can seek reference of disputes to arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the deed of partnership. The Court highlighted that for non-signatories to be made a party to arbitration the requirement of law is that they must prima facie be connected to the arbitration...