Supreme Court explains how Non-Signatories may be bound by Arbitration Agreements
The Supreme Court elucidated the key factors through which the intention of the parties to be bound by an arbitration agreement can be gauged.
Section 11
Can the issue of limitation be decided in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act? Delhi High Court answers
“The Court’s jurisdiction at the pre-reference stage is only to determine the prime facie existence of an arbitration agreement and the final adjudication, even on the question of limitation, is to be left to the arbitral tribunal, being the parties’ chosen forum.”
‘No claim certificate’ by a party does not automatically render dispute non-arbitrable: Gujarat HC
“If the Court reaches a clear conclusion that there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is non-arbitrable, it may refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration, otherwise, the rule is to refer the dispute to arbitration”.
‘Limitation period for arbitration to be decided by Arbitral Tribunal while passing order u/s 20 of A&C Act’; Telangana HC appoints nominee arbitrator u/s 11(6)
“It is a well-settled law that while deciding the question of appointment of arbitrator, the Court shall not touch the merits of the case as it may cause prejudice to the case of the parties.”
Bombay High Court | One Partner cannot refer a dispute to arbitration in the absence of the other Partners joining
The objection raised was on the ground that, although the applicants and respondent 2 formed a partnership to enter into the investment agreement with respondent 1, the notice invoking arbitration was issued only on behalf of the applicants and that respondent 2, despite being a partner, did not join in issuing the invocation notice.
Accrual of cause of action at a place for pursuing substantive legal action, not a consideration for determining territorial jurisdiction u/s 11 of A&C Act, 1996: Delhi High Court
“As per Clause 31.16 of Letter of Intent between parties, place of arbitration was Faridabad (Haryana), which will be chosen as the seat, since seat has not been separately named and there are no other contrary indicia to show that place of arbitration is not intended to be seat of arbitration.”
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.”
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.”
Delhi High Court allows parties to nominate arbitrator upon Dispute Redressal Committee’s failure to settle dispute
The stipulations contained in Clause 25 of the Agreement must consequently be read down and understood to mean that at least one or more of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal must possess the qualifications as prescribed in Clause 25.
‘Interest cannot be withheld in the absence of express provisions permitting the same’; Delhi High Court partially sets aside arbitral award for being patently illegal
The impugned arbitral award was passed without considering the clauses of the Concessionaire Agreement while adjudicating on the rate of interest to be granted, thus, suffers from infirmity and patent illegality.
[Arbitration Agreement] Delhi High Court reiterates the law of interpretation with respect to two inconsistent clauses of a same instrument/document/deed
Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one
Delhi High Court | Review is permissible against an order dismissing a petition under S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
While exercising the power conferred by Section 11 of the Act, the Court ceases to be a Court of Record and the review or reopening of proceedings which is sought is not with respect to any power exercised by the Court under Section 11 on merits but on account of the evident factual mistake in that order.
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
Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement
Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section
“Complex” questions involving novation of contract can’t be decided by Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Supreme Court
“Detailed arguments on whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.”
3 years’ limitation period ‘unduly long’; Necessary for Parliament to fill the vacuum by prescribing a specific period of limitation under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 1996: SC
3 years is an unduly long period for filing an application under Section 11, since it would defeat the very object of the Act, which provides for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes within a time bound period.