No Fixed Format For Sending Notice U/S 21 Of A&C Act, Outlining Clear Intention To Adopt Arbitration Is Sufficient: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that there is no prescribed format for a notice invoking arbitration. The legal requirement is that the party invoking arbitration must clearly outline the disputes between the parties and state that if these disputes remain unresolved, arbitration proceedings will be initiated. The intention to resolve the disputes through arbitration must be explicitly stated in the notice. Brief Facts: In the present case, Petitioners...

Fresh Cause Of Action Cannot Accrue U/S 18 Of Limitation Act If Liability Is Acknowledged After Expiry Of Period Of Limitation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathanshankar has held that for a valid acknowledgment under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 certain essential requirements must be met. Firstly, the acknowledgment must be made before the relevant period of limitation has expired. Secondly, it must pertain specifically to the liability concerning the right in question. Lastly, the acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the party against whom such ...

Indo-Swiss DTAA | Period Of Reference Can't Be Excluded From Limitation U/S 153B Income Tax Act If Reference Is Invalid: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be invoked to exclude the period of reference under the Indo-Swiss DTAA, if the reference itself is invalid.A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia observed,“On a plain reading of Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Act, the exclusion of time taken for obtaining the information (or one year) for completion of the assessment under Section...

Income Tax Act Doesn't Contemplate Hiatus Between Handing Over & Receipt Of Documents By AO Of Non-Searched Entity: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court made it clear that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “does not contemplate a hiatus” between handing over and receipt of information or documents pertaining to a non-searched entity.For context, Section 153C allows the Revenue department to proceed against a party other than the person who is being searched, if incriminating articles belonging to the other person are found during the search.In terms of proviso to Section 153C, the date of search for non-searched...

'Conduct Is Disquieting To Court's Conscience': Delhi High Court Dismisses Applications For Condonation Of Delay In Filing & Re-Filing Appeal

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Harishankar and Ajay Digpaul observed that the conduct of the appellants in this case is deeply troubling to the court's conscience. They neither informed the respondents about the filing of the present appeals nor disclosed the same to the court, even though the respondents' appeals challenging the same arbitral award had been listed and heard multiple times. Under these circumstances, the delay in filing and refiling the appeals cannot be...

[Arbitration] S.10 Of General Clauses Act Applies Only If S.34 Application Was Filed Within Time, Court Was Closed On Last Day Of Limitation: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul has held that the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is available only when the petition is filed within the normal limitation period that is 90 days as prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act and the court was closed on the last day of that period. It does not apply when the court was closed on the last day of the extendable period under proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. ...

[Arbitration Act] Opposite Party's Failure To Reply To S.21 Notice Doesn't Imply Consent To Appointment Of Named Arbitrator: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh while setting aside an arbitral award has observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator vitiates the award and if the opposite party fails to reply to the notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”), then such inaction cannot lead to an inference as to implied consent or acquiescence of the party to appointment of the named Arbitrator. The Court held that in such a situation the only recourse available to...

Interest Ceases To Accrue On Decretal Amount Deposited In Court Registry When Award Holder Has Knowledge Of Deposit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that once the Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount with the court registry pursuant to a court order, and the Award Holder has notice of such deposit, interest on the deposited amount ceases to accrue. Consequently, interest can only be claimed on the remaining outstanding amount, not on the sum deposited with the court. Brief Facts: PCL STICCO (JV) (Award Holder) filed an appeal under Section 13(1A)...

Pre-Deposit Of Awarded Amount Through Bye-Laws For Entertaining Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Impermissible: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that Bye-laws may serve as operational guidelines, but they cannot impose conditions that conflict with statutory rights. The Court held that when there is no requirement of depositing the awarded amount as a precondition for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to set aside an award, any attempt to introduce such a requirement through bye-laws is impermissible. Brief Facts: Dr. Agarwal, learned...

Mandate Of MSME Council Not Automatically Terminated For Failure To Refer Dispute To Arbitration Within 90 Days: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council to refer a dispute to arbitration under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, following the failure of conciliation under Section 18(2), is not automatically terminated if the referral is not made within 90 days as prescribed under Section 18(5). Unlike Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act)...

Appointment Of Arbitrator As 'Observer' In Another Matter Does Not Render Him Ineligible Under 5th & 7th Schedule Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the appointment of an arbitrator as an observer in a matter unrelated to the arbitration dispute does not constitute de facto or de jure ineligibility under the Fifth or Seventh Schedules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Consequently, the arbitrator's mandate cannot be terminated on this ground under Section 14 of the Act. However, the court permitted the petitioner to raise this objection ...

Intent Of S.11(6) Of Arbitration Act Is Not To Confer Jurisdiction On Courts Incompetent To Entertain Such Applications: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the intent of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be interpreted to confer jurisdiction on a court that is otherwise incompetent to entertain an application under this provision. Brief Facts: The present petitions arise from two Home Loan Agreements dated 31.03.2018 between the petitioner and respondents. Under these agreements, the petitioner sanctioned loans of Rs....