Bombay High Court denies appointment of arbitrator for dispute against MSME
Bombay High Court held the instant applications under Section 11 of Arbitration Act as non-maintainable and dismissed the said applications.
Appointment of arbitrator
Seat of arbitration once fixed by the arbitration agreement, has the exclusive jurisdiction for applications u/s 11 of the A&C Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court
“The Court observes that the ‘contrary indicia’ is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.”
Review application for Arbitrator’s appointment maintainable under Article 215 of the Constitution of India: Calcutta High Court
High Courts are superior Courts of records, and the power to review orders is not restricted by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause
“The Court exercised the powers conferred under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed, Jai Prakash Narayan Purohit, Retired Additional District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.”
“Only ex facie invalidity of an agreement can be a ground for refusal of reference”; Calcutta High Court allows Section 11 application
Without questioning the validity and legality of the arbitration clause, the Calcutta High Court appointed an Arbitrator to decide the issues raised by both the parties.
Allegation of Forgery/Fraud inter partes does not render dispute non-arbitrable; Calcutta High Court appoints sole arbitrator
The Court opined that the mere potential or presence of criminal proceedings deriving from the same circumstances would not exclude the issue from being resolved through arbitration.
Delhi High Court dismisses petition under S. 11 Arbitration Act in view of moratorium imposed on parent company
Delhi High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh legal action for the same relief once the moratorium is lifted or varied.
Delhi High Court clarifies the position of Res Judicata with respect to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act
Delhi High Court was of the view that it would be within its right to dismiss the petition at the threshold if the petition is not maintainable, otherwise an unacceptable position of law would arise where despite a petition being not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction would need to be entertained.
Delhi High Court applies the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz to refer the dispute to an Arbitral Tribunal
An arbitration agreement that is embedded within a contract would always be considered as a separate and severable clause, and despite a reference being made by the court the arbitrator is free to decide on their jurisdiction including the existence of the arbitration agreement in accordance with the kompetenz-kompetenz principle
Bombay High Court analyses whether ‘referring disputes to a sole arbitrator’ printed at the back of the tax invoice amount to an arbitration clause
Any document in writing exchanged between the parties which provide a record of the agreement and in respect of which there is no denial by the other side, would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and would amount to an arbitration clause.
‘Arbitration Agreement is a separate agreement distinct from the main contract’; Delhi High Court refers the parties to arbitration under a ‘Non-Binding Term Sheet’
The Court, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act, can refuse to refer the parties to arbitration only where “it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny.”
Jharkhand High Court | Maintainability of application under S. 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of substitute arbitrator
Jharkhand High Court: While allowing the application under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for appointment of
Delhi High Court| Interpretation of an arbitration clause must be predicated upon a construction of the contract as a whole, and no particular word or phrase should be unduly emphasized to negate the clause of its true meaning
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Panasonic India Private Limited (petitioner) seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes which
Calcutta High Court | Illegal procedure for appointment of Arbitrator does not render Arbitration agreement illegal in toto; Guiding Principles for Appointment of Arbitrator reiterated
Calcutta High Court: In a petition challenging the appointment of sole Arbitrator by the respondent, Shekhar B. Saraf, J., held
Ori HC | It is only when a purchase order is placed that a ‘contract’ would be entered into and only then arbitration clause would become part thereof
Orissa High Court: S. Muralidhar, CJ. dismissed the petition, declined the appointment of arbitrator and left it open to the petitioners to
Del HC | Can a party unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator of their choice? Read on
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., reiterated that no party could be permitted to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, as the same
SC to decide if Arbitration Clause in the principal contract be imported into subsequent contracts
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Bobde and SA Nazeer, JJ has issued notice to Pometon Spa, an Italian company involved in
Court can’t directly appoint arbitrator if parties have not exhausted remedies under Arbitration Agreement
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that the Chief Justice or his Designate, in exercise
Termination of agreement does not automatically terminate the arbitration clause contained in such agreement
Karnataka High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of Dinesh Maheshwari, J. while hearing a civil writ petition for appointment of arbitrator
Supreme Court cannot entertain objections as the original court solely because it has appointed the arbitrator
Supreme Court: Deciding the question relating to the entertainability of an application by this Court for making an award passed by the