Bombay High Court held the instant applications under Section 11 of Arbitration Act as non-maintainable and dismissed the said applications.
“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.”
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.
“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.”
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.
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 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 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.
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
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: While allowing the application under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for appointment of
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: In a petition challenging the appointment of sole Arbitrator by the respondent, Shekhar B. Saraf, J., held
Orissa High Court: S. Muralidhar, CJ. dismissed the petition, declined the appointment of arbitrator and left it open to the petitioners to
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., reiterated that no party could be permitted to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, as the same
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Bobde and SA Nazeer, JJ has issued notice to Pometon Spa, an Italian company involved in
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that the Chief Justice or his Designate, in exercise
Karnataka High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of Dinesh Maheshwari, J. while hearing a civil writ petition for appointment of arbitrator
Supreme Court: Deciding the question relating to the entertainability of an application by this Court for making an award passed by the