{"id":299429,"date":"2023-08-16T16:00:28","date_gmt":"2023-08-16T10:30:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=299429"},"modified":"2023-08-18T15:49:21","modified_gmt":"2023-08-18T10:19:21","slug":"unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court:<\/b> In a case involving two Arbitration petitions filed under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (the Act) seeking an injunction against disposal of assets under a Master Facility Agreement and a Settlement Agreement, a single-judge bench comprising of Moushumi Bhattacharya,*<\/b> J., held that due to the absence of an unambiguous intention to incorporate the arbitration clause under Section 7(5)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> and the lack of a contractual relationship between the parties, the petitioner’s application for interim relief is dismissed.<\/p>\n

Brief Fact<\/b><\/p>\n

In the instant matter, the petitioner sought an injunction against respondent 1 from dealing with assets under the Master Facility Agreement executed between SREI Equipment Finance Ltd. (SREI) and respondent 1, and a subsequent Settlement Agreement executed between SREI and the petitioner. The Master Facility Agreement was assigned to the petitioner by SREI in satisfaction of dues. Since the facts were identical and relied upon the same legal propositions, both petitions were being addressed together.<\/p>\n

Contentions<\/b><\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that the petitioner has the right to the Master Facility Agreement’s arbitration clause due to its assignment from SREI and that the respondent no. 1 was bound by the Settlement Agreement’s arbitration clause.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, respondent 1 argued that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and themselves, and thus, no valid arbitration agreement. It was contended that a general reference to the Master Facility Agreement was insufficient for incorporating the arbitration clause and specific incorporation of the arbitration clause is necessary.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/b><\/p>\n

1. Whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the petitioner and respondent 1 that justifies a Section 9 application.<\/p>\n

2. Whether a composite reference can be made for two separate arbitration agreements.<\/p>\n

Court’s Observation<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court analyzed the issue of incorporating an arbitration clause by reference under Section 7(5)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>. It held that the statutory position did not support the petitioner’s argument, as there was no unambiguous intention expressed by the parties to incorporate the arbitration clause from one agreement to the other. The Court emphasized that incorporation by reference must be clear and in harmony with the contract’s terms, and this was not the case in the present situation.<\/p>\n

“…the reference to the contract is clear and reflects the intention of the parties to be bound by the arbitration clause which is to be incorporated into the contract. The incorporation of the arbitration clause into the contract (which does not contain the arbitration clause) would also have to be appropriate to the disputes under the contract to which the arbitration clause is incorporated and not result in repugnancy to the terms of the contract.”<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court rejects the petitioner’s claim that the arbitration clause from one agreement should be incorporated into the other, as there is no mutual intention expressed between the parties for such incorporation.<\/p>\n

The Court also highlighted that an application for interim relief under Section 9(1)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> was available only to a “party” to an arbitration agreement. Since there was no clear arbitration agreement between the petitioner and respondent 1, and SREI was the common link between the agreements but not a party to the proceedings, the Court could not find a basis for granting interim relief.<\/p>\n

Court’s Verdict<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court dismissed both the Arbitration Petitions without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n

[Kobelco Construction Equipment India (P) Ltd. v. Lara Mining, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2327<\/a>, order dated 11-08-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

Mr. Swatatrup Banerjee, Mr. Sariful Haque, Mr. Hareram Singh, Ms. Shilpa Das, Counsel for the Petitioner;<\/p>\n

Mr. Anirban Ray, Mr. Varun Kothari, Ms. Anshumala Bansal, Counsel for the Respondents.<\/p>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":290502,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[40741,23324,2689,57782,30424],"class_list":["post-299429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-arbitration-clause","tag-Calcutta_High_Court","tag-justice-moushumi-bhattacharya","tag-reference"],"yoast_head":"\nUnambiguous intent required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court held that unambiguous intent is required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Calcutta High Court held that unambiguous intent is required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-08-16T10:30:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-08-18T10:19:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Unambiguous intent required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-08-16T10:30:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-08-18T10:19:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Calcutta High Court held that unambiguous intent is required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"calcutta high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Unambiguous intent required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog","description":"Calcutta High Court held that unambiguous intent is required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court","og_description":"Calcutta High Court held that unambiguous intent is required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-08-16T10:30:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-08-18T10:19:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/","name":"Unambiguous intent required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference: Calcutta High Court | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-08-16T10:30:28+00:00","dateModified":"2023-08-18T10:19:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Calcutta High Court held that unambiguous intent is required for incorporation of Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"calcutta high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/16\/unambiguous-intent-required-for-incorporation-arbitration-clause-by-reference-calcutta-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":287070,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/17\/arbitration-petition-calcutta-high-court-appointment-arbitrator-disqualification-section-12-seventh-schedule-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-legal-research-news-scc-online-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":299429,"position":0},"title":"All unilateral appointments of arbitrators are not invalid: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"March 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court held that all the unilateral appointment of arbitrators is not invalid unless the arbitrator's relationship falls within the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-604.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":312178,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/25\/cal-hc-dismisses-application-for-appointment-of-arbitrator-rules-may-in-clause-13-renders-dispute-resolution-ambiguous-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":299429,"position":1},"title":"Calcutta High Court dismisses application for appointment of Arbitrator; rules \u201cMay\u201d in Clause 13 renders dispute resolution ambiguous","author":"Ritu","date":"January 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Calcutta High Court emphasised the need for a clear and unequivocal expression of intent to arbitrate.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292770,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/22\/calcutta-high-court-appointment-arbitrator-pendency-reference-msme-facilitation-council-contrary-to-msmed-act-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":299429,"position":2},"title":"Appointment of Arbitrator during pendency of reference before MSME Facilitation Council is contrary to MSMED Act: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"May 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c\u2026being a special statute the MSMED Act will have an overriding effect vis-\u00e0-vis the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297360,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/if-supplier-is-medium-enterprise-defaulting-buyer-need-not-to-pay-interest-three-times-of-bank-rate-calcutta-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":299429,"position":3},"title":"Defaulting Buyers exempted from paying 3 times the Bank Interest Rate under Section 16 of the MSMED Act when supplier is \u2018medium enterprise\u2019: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"July 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe irrationality of the quantum of the costs imposed will be considered at the time of determining whether the Award should be set aside under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272263,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/26\/calcutta-high-court-conduct-of-parties-not-a-substitute-for-an-arbitration-agreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":299429,"position":4},"title":"Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement","author":"Editor","date":"August 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot substitute arbitration agreement with conduct of parties. Facts of the Case The respondent filed an application under Section 11\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/calcutta_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308662,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/07\/section-434-of-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-does-not-create-new-window-after-expiry-of-limitation-calcutta-high-court-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":299429,"position":5},"title":"Section 43(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not create new window after expiry of limitation: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"December 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe 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.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=299429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299429\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/290502"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=299429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=299429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=299429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}