Pendency Of Proceedings Before Competent Authority Under Jharkhand Apartment Ownership Act Will Not Affect Application U/S 11 Of A&C Act: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao has observed that 'competent authority' within the meaning of Section 3(l) of the Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Owners Act, 2011 is an executive authority and not a quasi-judicial or judicial authority. Accordingly, pendency of some proceedings under the said Act would not preclude the court from appointing an arbitrator...

No Bar On Arbitrator To Allow Withdrawal Of Claims Provided Legitimate Interests Of Other Party Are Not Prejudiced: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale has held that the arbitrator can allow the parties to withdraw their claims to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings by issuing a new notice of arbitration, provided that the legitimate interests of the other party are not prejudiced. Brief Facts: An agreement was executed between the Petitioner, in...

Singapore's Supreme Court Sets Aside Award By Tribunal Presided Over By Ex-CJI Dipak Mishra Upon Finding Almost 50% Copy-Pasted Content

The Supreme Court of Singapore has set aside an arbitral award passed by a tribunal presided over by former Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra upon finding that almost half of the contents of the award were verbatim 'copy-pasted' from earlier awards passed by the same presiding arbitrator.A bench comprising of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justice Steven Chong held:"...New arguments...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: March 2025

Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Party : Supreme Court Case : Rahul Verma and others vs Rampat Lal Verma and others Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 269 The Supreme Court has reiterated that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm. The...

MSME Council Cannot Reject Arbitrable Claims Without Providing Any Reasons When Meditation U/S 18 Of MSME Act Has Failed: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Facilitation Council cannot reject the arbitrable claims of the supplier without providing an opportunity to present evidence in support of the same, especially when mediation, as required under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006...

Clause Empowering Contract Signatories To Resolve Disputes Does Not Constitute A Valid Arbitration Agreement Due To Lack Of Impartiality: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that merely because a dispute resolution mechanism is provided in a clause empowering the signatories to the contract to resolve the dispute, it cannot be inferred that the parties intended to refer the dispute to arbitration. Such a clause amounts to an in-house mechanism and not a reference to an impartial arbitral...

Awarded Amount Cannot Be Enhanced Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that the District Judge, while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), is not empowered to increase the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. The findings of the Arbitrator with respect to the awarded amount can only be set aside if they contravene any of...

Limitation Cannot Be Decided As Preliminary Issue Without Recording Whether It Is A Mixed Question Of Law And Fact: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik has held that an arbitrator is not permitted to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue without first recording a finding as to whether it is a mixed question of law and fact that requires evidence to be led. It further held that if such a finding is not recorded and the issue is...

Bombay High Court Directs Developer Of Lodha Worli Towers To Collect Maintenance At Rate Agreed Upon Between Parties Until Arbitral Proceedings Are Completed

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan the developer of Lodha World Towers in a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) has been directed to charge the Federation Common Area Maintenance (FCAM) Charges at the rate agreed upon in the agreement executed between the parties, until the arbitral proceedings...

[Arbitration] Referral Court Should Limit Enquiry To Whether Plea Has Been Filed Within Limitation, Not Whether Claims Are Ex-Facie Time Barred: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that at the stage of appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, A&C, the referral court should limit its inquiry to whether the petition itself is within the limitation period of three years and should leave the question of whether the claims are deadwood to the arbitral tribunal. Facts The Petitioner...

S. 34(3) Arbitration Act | Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for challenging an arbitral award should not be rigidly interpreted as exactly 90 days, rather it should be interpreted as three calendar months. The Court upheld the filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act...

Delay In Receiving Award Due To Default In Paying Arbitral Fees Cannot Be Held Against Party Seeking To Challenge Award While Calculating Limitation: J&K HC

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that since the delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award was the mandatory requirement under the arbitration act therefore, the limitation for challenging the said award would arise only after the said signed copy is received by the party seeking to challenge the same.The petitioner had not received the certified copy of the award dated 01.03.2024...