Telangana High Court
Unfair To Presume That Plea Of Limitation Can't Be Adjudicated By Arbitrator, Court U/S 11 Must Not Conduct Roving Inquiry: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that in a scenario where the referral court can discern the frivolity of the dispute from the bare minimum pleadings, it would be incorrect to presume that the arbitral tribunal, equipped to undertake a detailed examination of the pleadings and evidence, would be unable to reach the same conclusion. Therefore, it is better that the plea of limitation should be left to be decided by the Arbitrator. Brief Facts: The 1st...
Court Can Appoint New Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act If Designated Arbitral Institution No Longer Exists: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K Lakshman has held that even if the designated arbitral institution named in the arbitration agreement no longer exists, the Court can still appoint a new arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) provided the intention to arbitrate is clearly evident from the arbitration clause. Brief Facts: Danieli India Limited (Applicant) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956...
S.47 Of CPC Cannot Be Used As An Alternative To S.37 Of A&C Act For Unsettling Arbitration Award: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court has clarified that section 47 of the CPC, which permits objections to be raised in an execution petition before the Trial Court; cannot be used as an alternative to challenge an arbitration award, which is being executed before a Trial Court.The Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, while passing the order made it clear that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a Code in itself and lays down a mechanism to challenge an...
Compensation Can Be Granted When Aggrieved Party Continues Service Due To Suppression Of Fact Of Contract's Termination: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R.Madhusudhan Rao has held that loss of profit incurred by a party due to the other party's suppression of material facts regarding the termination of the contract, where the former continued to render services under a mistaken belief, can be reasonably compensated by applying the Hudson formula. Brief Facts: In June, 2012, M/s. Gayathri Projects Limited (GPL)/Principal Employer issued a Tender Notification...
Mandate Of Arbitration U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act Can Be Extended By High Court Only When Arbitrator Is Appointed By It: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao has held that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) in a domestic arbitration, the mandate of the arbitrator can be extended by the High Court only under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act and not by any other courts inferior to the High Court. Brief Facts: The present civil revision petition has...
Arbitrator Cannot Be Appointed Unless Arbitration Clause Is Invoked With Proper Notice U/S 21 Of A&C Act: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul has held that unless a proper notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), suggesting the name of the proposed arbitrator, is sent to the other party, the court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. Merely demanding outstanding payment without proposing the name of an arbitrator cannot be construed as a valid invocation of the arbitration...
Natural Gas Can Be Equated With Petroleum Gas, To Be Taxed Under Entry 23 Of 6th Schedule Of APGST Act: Telangana High Court
In a case pertaining to the taxation of Natural Gas, the Telangana High Court has held that Natural Gas shall fall under Entry 23 of 6th Schedule, under the category of petroleum gases, and not Entry 118. The different entries change the percentage of tax levied. Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that “This bench is of the firm opinion that the findings given by the Tribunal holding that the natural gas sold by the petitioner falls under entry 23 of 6th schedule is proper” The...
Order Rejecting Jurisdictional Objections U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act Can Be Challenged U/S 34, Not Under Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao has held that an order rejecting jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can only be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration Act after an award is passed, and no writ petition against such an order can be entertained. Brief Facts: There was a joint venture cum shareholders agreement executed between the petitioners and ...
Anti-Arbitration Suit Giving Short-Shrift To Sec 16 A&C Act Is Hit By Order 7 Rule 11(d) Of CPC: Telangana High Court Reiterates
The Telangana High Court has reiterated and clarified that suits initiated before Civil Courts to curb arbitration proceedings ignore section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, and deserve to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) as being barred by statute.The order was passed in a commercial court appeal by a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao. Relying on a series of judgements, (Kvaerner Cementation India Limited Vs. Bajranglal...
S.17 Of Arbitration Act Casts Weighty Burden On Party To Persuade Court To Hold Onto S.9 Proceedings After Formation Of Tribunal: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court has held that the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act grants a bouquet of protections to a party during the course of arbitral proceedings. It clarified that section 9 (3) restricts a party from seeking interim protection before a Court, once a tribunal has been constituted. After the amendment, once the Tribunal has been constituted, the parties can avail of the protection under section 17 by applying to the Tribunal.The Bench further explained that...
SCN & Orders Not Containing Signature Of Proper Officer Cannot Sustain Judicial Scrutiny: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court stated that the show cause notices and the orders which are not pregnant with the signature of the Proper Officer cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara observed that “since Rule and prescribed Forms mandate requirement of signature of Proper Officer, its violation makes the notice/order vulnerable. Any contrary view taken by Court about DRC-07 having no signature without considering the...
Designated Committee Under Sabka Vishwas Scheme May Reject Application For Compounding Tax Over Bogus Documents: Telangana High Court
A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Diwakar Road Lines challenging the rejection of an application to compound all previous service tax by way of a one-time settlement. The bench held that even though the statute does not prescribe for the rejection of any application, the committee may reject an application when the documents relied upon are ingenuine. The Division Bench comprising of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice...