Party Nominating Arbitrator In Response To Notice U/S 21 Of Arbitration Act Is Prohibited From Raising Plea Of Limitation In Petition U/S 11: Madras HC

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that once a party nominates an arbitrator in response to a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), it cannot later argue in a petition under Section 11 of the Act that the claim for which the notice was issued is time-barred. Brief Facts: The petition has been...

Order Rejecting Jurisdictional Objections U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act Can Be Challenged U/S 34, Not Under Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao has held that an order rejecting jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can only be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration Act after an award is passed, and no writ petition against such an order can...

Execution Of Gift Deed After Arbitral Award Was Passed Indicates Attempt To Frustrate Rights Of Decree Holder, Not Bona Fide Conduct: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the execution of the Gift Deed by the petitioner after an arbitral award is passed suggests an attempt to frustrate the rights of the decree-holder. Also, the court held that the manner in which the Gift Deed has been executed by the parents clearly suggests that the sole objective was to somehow thwart and defeat the...

Arbitrator's Decision To Postpone Issue Of Partnership Firm's Dissolution To Stage Of Final Hearing Not Perverse: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that the decision of the Arbitrator to postpone the issue of determining the date of dissolution of the partnership firm to the stage of final hearing cannot be considered perverse for the purpose of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), as it requires evidence to...

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Refusal Of Injunction Against Use Of Tagline "Jeeto Har DinZo" By Winzo Games

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has upheld the findings of the Arbitrator, who refused to grant an injunction restraining Winzo Games Private Limited (“Respondent”) from using the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” developed by Creativeland Advertising Private Limited (“Appellant”). Since there was no formal agreement fixing a price for the tagline and...

Benefit Of S.14 Of Limitation Act Extends To Delayed Filing Of Petition U/S 34 Of A&C Act Due To Prosecution In Good Faith In Another Court: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) can be extended to the petitioner who committed delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) due to the prevailing legal position at...

Court Must Assign Reasons For Accepting Or Rejecting Grounds Of Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be dismissed merely by stating that the scope of interference is limited; the court must address each ground of challenge and provide reasoned findings. Brief Facts: The appellant (hereinafter...

Arbitrator's Mandate Can Be Extended If Non-Completion Of Proceedings In 12 Months Is Due To Delays Not Attributable To Petitioner: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the arbitral proceedings are not completed within 12 months due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner, as failing to do so would cause grave prejudice to the...

Court's Jurisdiction U/S 11(6) Of A&C Act Is Decided Under CPC When No Seat Or Venue Is Specified In Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that in the absence of a specified seat or venue in the Arbitration Agreement, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is determined by Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The relevant factors include where the respondent resides or...

Court Can Appoint Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act If MSME Council Fails To Initiate Mediation U/S 18 Of MSMED Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that When the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED Act) fails to initiate the mediation process under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, the court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Brief...

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Does Not Imply Acceptance Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator Unless Objections Are Waived In Writing: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be terminated under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is explicitly prohibited under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act unless the ineligibility is expressly waived through a...

Non-Signatories To Arbitration Agreement Can Be Made Party To Dispute If Reliefs Sought Against Them Align With Those Sought Against Signatories: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar has observed that if the reliefs against the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement are in harmony with the reliefs sought against the signatories, particularly when the legal relationship between the signatories and non-signatories are on the same platform vis-a-vis the cause of action of the suit and...