2024 SCC Vol. 3 Part 4
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 5: Principles summarised re scope of interference by Court under S. 34. Supervisory,
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
‘Objections under S. 47 CPC are applicable only to execution of decrees not maintainable against arbitral awards’; Allahabad HC imposes Rs 5 lakhs cost on State
“Imposition of costs in cases of frivolous litigation is essential to maintain the integrity, efficiency, and fairness of the judicial system. By deterring abuse of the legal process, promoting judicial efficiency, and upholding the principles of fairness and justice, cost imposition serves to safeguard the rights of individuals, protect the integrity of the legal system, and bolster public confidence in the administration of justice.”
Rajasthan High Court entertains appeal despite prima facie view on non-maintainability under MSMED Act
Rajasthan High Court decided to entertain the appeal due to the significant question of the application’s maintainability.
Calcutta High Court determines applicable interest rate based on amended Section 31(7)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Calcutta High Court applied the amended Section 31(7)(b) for determining the interest rate after considering the silence of the Award on the interest issue and the subsequent execution proceedings filed after the 2016 amendment.
Calcutta High Court upholds Arbitration Clause; directs parties to resolve dispute arising from distributor agreement through Arbitration
The Calcutta High Court emphasised on the doctrine of “kompetenz-kompetenz”, granting the Arbitral Tribunal the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement.
Calcutta High Court rejects time-barred claim in arbitration dispute over alleged failure to deliver signed copy of award
The Calcutta High Court opined that the onus is on the award-holder to provide irrefutable evidence of delivery, and any doubt in this regard favors the award-debtor.
Filing of petition cannot be non est, if the defects raised were procedural and curable: Delhi High Court
“Even if the Registry declines registration, the Court has ample power to condone the delay in re-filing. This power has to be exercised liberally although cautiously to avoid delay by an unscrupulous litigant.”
Section 43(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not create new window after expiry of limitation: Calcutta High Court
“The limitation for filing an application will start to run from the day when the cause of action accrues regardless of the existence of an arbitration clause.”
Group of Companies Doctrine applicable in Indian Arbitration Jurisprudence; Can bind non-signatory parties to Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court 5 Judge Bench
“The approach in Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification, (2013) 1 SCC 641 to the extent that it traces the group of companies doctrine to the phrase ‘claiming through or under’ as given under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was erroneous and against the well settled principles of contract in commercial law”.
Calcutta High Court allows 6 months extension of Arbitral Mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Calcutta High Court emphasized the distinction between vigilant litigants and those contributing to unnecessary delays in the arbitration process, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Whether a Judge who has passed an Order previously is eligible to be nominated as an Arbitrator? – Gujarat HC answers
A mere fact that the nominated Arbitrator had been a member of the Bench of the Court, which had decided the validity of the interim order passed by the then Arbitral Tribunal, it cannot be held that the “Arbitrator has previous involvement in the case”.
Credible evidence is must to substantiate claim of loss of profitability; SC sets aside arbitral award in conflict with ‘public policy of India’
“The credibility of the evidence is the evidence of the credibility of claim for loss of profit”.
Depositing award amount for withdrawal with due notice to the decree holder is sufficient to discharge onus on the judgment debtor: Delhi High Court
“The decree holder was not required to await the outcome of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, if it did choose to remain under a self-imposed embargo, then it can’t demand interest.”
Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
While cautioning the parties to the Arbitration proceedings, Calcutta High Court stated that parties should be vigilant in applying for extensions within the prescribed periods and dismissed the petitions seeking an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate.
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.”
Dissenting Opinion in Arbitration cannot be treated as an award if majority award is set aside: Supreme Court
“Dissenting opinion of arbitrators might provide useful clues during procedural issues, which forms a critical part when the hearings are challenged”.
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.”
Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court
In the instant matter, the primary issue was the incorporation of arbitration clauses from the Master Facility Agreement and Settlement Agreement and the maintainability of a composite reference.
Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons: SC defers hearing as Centre considers Reforms to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Two Benches of the Supreme Court had expressed their disagreement with the view taken in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), therefore, the matter was referred to larger Bench.
“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.