If No Bonafide Negotiations Occur After Arbitration Notice, Period Cannot Be Excluded From Limitation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that if, after the issuance of a notice invoking arbitration, no bonafide negotiations take place between the parties, and the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) expires, the time allegedly spent in such negotiations cannot be excluded while computing the limitation period under Section 11. Brief Facts: The disputes between the...

Questions On Legality Of Revival Of Arbitral Proceedings To Be Adjudicated By Tribunal U/S 16 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while hearing a writ petition challenging the decision of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Respondent No. 1) to revive arbitral proceeding after closing the proceedings due to non-filing of the State of Claim (SOC) observed that since the proceedings have been revived, the Arbitral Tribunal is the competent authority to adjudicate and rule upon. Facts: The petitioners and Respondent No. 3 were in a business relationship....

No Damages For Loss Of Profit In Absence Of Proof Of Missed Profitable Ventures Due To Delay In Contractual Payment: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that unless it is demonstrated that the delay in payment for the completion of the work contract prevented the contractor from undertaking other profitable ventures, damages for loss of profits cannot be awarded. Brief Facts: The impugned arbitral award arose from disputes under a contract dated 29.08.2011 for Package-III Electrical Services at AIIMS, Patna, under the PMSSY scheme. The Arbitral Tribunal...

Waiver To Section 12(5) Of Arbitration Act Has To Be Given After Constitution Of The Tribunal: Delhi High Court

Th Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the party giving no-objection to the applicability of Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) has to give such no-objection after the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The waiver to applicability has to be done after the arbitrators are appointed with the names and details. The Court also observed that any waiver before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal is no waiver in the eyes of law. ...

Limitation For Application U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Can't Be Bypassed By Claiming Advocate Was Not Authorised To Issue Notice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the bar of limitation for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, cannot be circumvented merely on the ground that the demand-cum-arbitration invocation notice was issued by the petitioner's counsel without proper authorization. The court held that such a contention, if accepted, would render the limitation period for...

Arbitrator's Decision To Choose Internationally Recognised Formula Based On Expertise For Computing Damages Can't Be Faulted: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that different formulae may be applied depending on the circumstances, and the choice of method for computing damages falls within the arbitrator's discretion. Sections 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Contract Act) do not prescribe any specific formula for the calculation of damages. Therefore, the arbitrator's decision to apply any internationally recognized method, based on their expertise, cannot be faulted. ...

Contempt Court Can Reverse Benefits Obtained From Disobeying Orders U/S 9 & 17 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal has held that the contempt court is empowered to issue directions to reverse any benefits obtained in disobedience of an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) to ensure that parties are restrained from violating the court's orders. In the present case, the Respondent was restrained from parting with the properties under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, and this order was...

[Arbitration] Initial Filing Without Essential Documents Non Est In Law, Limitation Can't Be Circumvented By Curing Defects: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that an initial filing made without the essential documents like attaching impugned award etc. required for adjudication is non est in law and has no legal existence. Such a filing, made merely to evade the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be considered valid. It further held that a significant delay in curing the defects cannot be condoned...

Controller Of Patents Must Specify Known Substance Against Which Claimed Invention Is Being Assessed In Hearing Notice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Controller of Patents must clearly specify in the hearing notice the 'known substance' against which the claimed invention of an applicant is being assessed.Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 bars the patentability of a 'new form' of a 'known substance' unless it demonstrates enhanced therapeutic efficacy.Justice Amit Bansal said that in order to sustain an objection under Section 3(d), the following factors have to be clearly identified by the...

When Deciding Application For Appointment Of Arbitrator, Court Cannot Examine Whether Claim Is Barred By Res Judicata: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has observed that it is not open to the referral court in a petition filed under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) to examine the issue whether the claim is barred by res judicata. Such an examination falls within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal. Facts The present petition had been filed for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6), ACA. The parties had entered into an agreement on 30.07.2010...

'Complete Specification' Of Invention In Patent Is Sacrosanct To Determine Case Of Infringement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the 'Complete Specification' of an invention is sacrosanct for determining infringement of its patent.Justice Amit Bansal held, “Once the plaintiff has itself identified features that are essential to the suit patent in the Complete Specification, it is estopped from contending that they are not essential so as to make out a case of infringement.”The observation comes in a patent suit filed by a city-based agrochemical company seeking an injunction to...

Rampant Misuse Of S.16 GST Act For Wrongful Availment Of ITC Will Create 'Enormous Dent' In GST Regime: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has once again flagged concerns over rampant misuse of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 by traders, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.The provision enables businesses to get input tax on the goods and services which are manufactured/ supplied by them in the chain of business transactions. It is meant as an incentive for businesses who need not pay taxes on the inputs, which have already been taxed at the source itself.A division bench of...