{"id":326914,"date":"2024-07-19T14:00:59","date_gmt":"2024-07-19T08:30:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=326914"},"modified":"2024-07-24T16:46:43","modified_gmt":"2024-07-24T11:16:43","slug":"delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\u2019; Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a petition filed under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Act’) to challenge an award dated 04-04-2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed by Respondent 2, a Single Judge Bench of Pratibha M. Singh, J. held that the petitioner had no locus to file a petition under Section 34, and the same was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party to the arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (‘Jindal’) (Respondent 1) had filed a complaint regarding the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (‘INDRP’) and the INDRP Rules of Procedure, adopted by the National Internet Exchange of India (‘NIXI’).<\/p>\n

The dispute between Jindal and respondent 3 concerned the domain name: ‘jsplsteel.in<\/span>’. Upon receipt of the complaint, NIXI issued a notice dated 08-02-2023 to respondent 3 to which a reply was filed by respondent 3 and the matter was heard by the Sole Arbitrator. Finally, vide the impugned award, the Sole Arbitrator directed the transfer of the domain name to Jindal.<\/p>\n

The Petitioner contended that he was the beneficial owner of the impugned domain name and the award had been passed without hearing him, which was a breach of the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n

Jindal submitted that the reply filed by respondent 3 was filed in coordination with the petitioner as was evident from the email dated 22-03-2023. It was also submitted that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings but chose not to appear before the Sole Arbitrator.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/p>\n

The Court stated that certain companies and individuals may engage a professional entity for registering domain names and hosting websites. However, the Court said that if such service providers list themselves as the Registrants of the domain names and the beneficial owner is not reflected as the Registrant, no notice is expected to be issued to such a third party, since they would be unknown persons\/entities under the INDRP.<\/p>\n

Further, the Court stated that any third party who may claim an interest in the domain name, without being bound by the INDRP, cannot allege that the award had been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the policy does not require third parties to be heard. The Court stated that the INDRP binds only the registrant, registrar, and complainant.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that once a decision has been issued by a panel under INDRP and if the complaint has succeeded, the complainant is entitled to seek enforcement of the award as well.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that it was not the petitioner but respondent 3 whose name reflected as the registrant of the said domain name on the WHOIS database. The Court stated that if the service provider had informed the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have sought impleadment in the INDRP proceeding, which he did not.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that neither NIXI nor the panelist could be faulted for not issuing notice to the petitioner because the domain owner was respondent 3 and not the petitioner. Thus, the Court stated that the petitioner would not have the locus to file a petition under Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a> since it was not a party to the arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Court referred to Mukesh Nanji Gala<\/span> v. Heritage Enterprises<\/span> 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1817<\/a> wherein it was held that only parties to an arbitration agreement can exercise rights and invoke arbitration for dispute adjudication, not outsiders. Reference was also made to Tara Logitech Pvt. Ltd.<\/span> v. Religare Finvest Ltd.<\/span> 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7528<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thus, while disposing of the petition, the Court held that considering the settled legal position, the petition under Section 34 of the Act was not maintainable.<\/p>\n

[Mukesh Udeshi v. Jindal Steel Power Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4564<\/a>, Decided on 02-07-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

For Petitioner —<\/span> Advocate Hrishikesh Chitaley<\/p>\n

For Respondent —<\/span> Sr. Advocate Gopal Jain, Advocate Gauri Rasgotra, Advocate B. Arutsivan, Advocate Sharad Kumar Sunny, Advocate Priyashree Sharma, Advocate Shruti Joshi, Advocate Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocate Gunav Gujral, Advocate Keshav Mann, Advocate Ajay Gupta<\/p>\n

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

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

Any third party claiming an interest in the domain name, without being bound by the INDRP, cannot allege that the award has been rendered in violation of principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":314886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[44195,2543,37814,71164,68948,9821,71165,11771],"class_list":["post-326914","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-domain-name","tag-indrp","tag-justice-pratibha-m-singh","tag-maintainability","tag-nixi","tag-third-party"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC holds petition under S.34 of the A&C Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\" \/>\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\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\u2019; Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-07-19T08:30:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-07-24T11:16:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\u2019; Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 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\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC holds petition under S.34 of the A&C Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-07-19T08:30:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-24T11:16:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\u2019; Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC holds petition under S.34 of the A&C Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard","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\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\u2019; Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable","og_description":"Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-07-19T08:30:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-07-24T11:16:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\u2019; Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/","name":"Delhi HC holds petition under S.34 of the A&C Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2024-07-19T08:30:59+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-24T11:16:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable and says INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/19\/delhi-hc-holds-petition-under-s-34-ac-act-1996-not-maintainable-says-indrp-policy-does-not-require-third-parties-to-be-heard\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard\u2019; Delhi High Court holds petition under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":330009,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":326914,"position":0},"title":"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024","author":"Editor","date":"September 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"A quick recap of the latest rulings on Arbitration Law by the High Courts.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Arbitration Roundup","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":313080,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/05\/dhc-upholds-arbitral-award-for-transfer-of-domain-name-kashmirharvard-edu-in-to-harvard-college-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":326914,"position":1},"title":"Delhi HC upholds arbitral award for transfer of Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute\u2019s domain name \u2018kashmirharvard.edu.in\u2019 to Harvard College","author":"Simranjeet","date":"February 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cPetitioner shows a scant regard for the limited scope of intervention with an award in an international commercial arbitration, or for the process of the Court. Pleas have been advanced which are contrary to the record, and many attempts have been made to mislead the Court.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-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\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273278,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/08\/delhi-high-court-amendment-application-being-rejected-as-belated-does-not-constitute-interim-award-susceptible-to-challenge-under-s-34-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996\/","url_meta":{"origin":326914,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court: Amendment application being rejected as ‘belated’ does not constitute interim award susceptible to challenge under S 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (\u2018A&C Act') challenging an order passed wherein the arbitrator rejected an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the statement of claim, Prateek Jalan, J. dismissed the petition as non-maintainable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_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\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":151124,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/08\/22\/petition-under-s-9-of-arbitration-conciliation-act-can-be-filed-only-before-the-civil-court-of-original-jurisdiction\/","url_meta":{"origin":326914,"position":3},"title":"Petition under S. 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act can be filed only before the civil court of original jurisdiction","author":"Saba","date":"August 22, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. held that such petition was not maintainable before the High Court. The petitioner prayed to the Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":203997,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/change-of-venue-different-from-change-of-seat-of-arbitration-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-34-ac-act-declined-for-seat-being-at-london-del-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":326914,"position":4},"title":"Change of ‘venue’ different from change of ‘seat’ of Arbitration; exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 A&C Act declined for ‘seat’ being at London: Del HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Single Judge Bench comprising of Navin Chawla, J., declined to exercise jurisdiction in entertaining a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 holding the\u00a0seat\u00a0Arbitration to be in London. The petition was filed under Section 34 in a matter arising out of a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":285619,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/27\/delhi-high-court-states-effect-of-res-judicata-on-section-11-of-arbitration-act-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":326914,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court clarifies the position of Res Judicata with respect to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act","author":"Editor","date":"February 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326914","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=326914"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326914\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=326914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=326914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=326914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}