Mere Passage Of Time Does Not Bar Arbitration If Arbitration Clause Remains Valid & Enforceable: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K Lakshman has held that mere passage of time does not bar arbitration if the arbitration clause remains valid. The Limitation for the purpose of filing the application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act commences from the date when request for initiating arbitration is rejected. Brief Facts: This application has been filed...

Inconsequential Errors Cannot Be Grounds To Challenge Judicious & Reasoned Award U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kunar Ohri has held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of apparent inconsequential errors and fumbles to challenge the award. Inconsequential errors in the award cannot be a ground to challenge otherwise judicious and reasoned award. Brief Facts of the case: The respondent accepted an offer letter to procure a machine...

Dispute Review Board's Recommendations Are Arbitral Awards, Enforceable U/S 36 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that the recommendations of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) rendered under a contract constitute an arbitral award which is enforceable as a decree under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court further held that the limitation for enforcement begins from the date of the award,...

Arbitration Clause Mandates Reference, Question Of Appropriateness Can't Be Considered U/S 8 Of A&C Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Rai Chattopadhyay has held that where an agreement between the parties contains a clear arbitration clause and disputes arise under that agreement, the Trial Court is bound to refer the parties to arbitration. The question of whether such reference is appropriate or not does not arise, as Section 8(1) of the Arbitration...

When Earlier Appointment Of Arbitrator Is Defective, Court May Appoint New Arbitrator U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K. Lakshman has held that a substitute arbitrator must generally be appointed in the same mode and manner as the original arbitrator. When the appointment of an earlier arbitrator was done under a defective arbitration clause or an unlawful procedure was followed, in such cases a proper recourse is to seek appointment of a new arbitrator...

Professional Engagement With Law Firm Does Not Disqualify Advocate From Acting As Arbitrator: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an Advocate who has accepted briefs from a law firm for unrelated clients cannot, by that fact alone, be deemed ineligible to act as an Arbitrator in disputes involving parties not personally known to or represented by him, even if the same law firm appears in the arbitration. Brief Facts: This...

Arbitration Act | Notice U/S 21 Not Always Necessary If Other Party Was Aware Of Dispute: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court ruled that since the respondent was already aware of and was not taken by surprise regarding petitioner's invocation of arbitration clause, their plea that the application for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable since no notice was served under Section 21 of the A&C Act 1996, lacked merit.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also reiterated the principle...

Named Arbitrator In Notice U/S 21 Of A&C Act Can't Pass Orders Without Consent Of Other Party Or Order Of Appointment U/S 11: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that a person who is the named Arbitrator in a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot enter reference and pass orders without the other person consenting thereto or without an order of appointment of Arbitrator by institution or a Court under Section 11 of...

Arbitrator Can't Grant Relief Contrary To Terms Of Contract: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Award Of Compensation For Delay

The Rajasthan High Court bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal have held that an arbitral award which grants reliefs beyond the express terms of the contract, including compensation for losses and interest where no such entitlement exists under the agreement, is patently illegal and liable to be set aside under Section 37 of the Arbitration and...

Limitation U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Begins From Date Of Receipt Of Award When Delivery Is Undisputed: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Bhuwan Goyal has held that when the delivery of the arbitral award at the registered address is not disputed, the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act cannot be suspended on the ground that the appellant became aware of the award at a later date. The limitation period must be computed from the...

Arbitration Clause Prevails Over Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause, Court At Designated Seat Retains Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that when an exclusive jurisdiction clause is expressly made "subject to" the arbitration clause, and the arbitration clause designates a different territorial location as the seat of arbitration, the arbitration clause prevails. In case of conflict, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the seat...

Arbitration Weekly Round Up [12th May-18th May 2025]

Supreme CourtPrivate Arbitration Clauses Cannot Override Statutory Mandates Under MSMED Act : Supreme Court Case Title: M/S HARCHARAN DASS GUPTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 567 Reaffirming that the MSMED Act prevails over the Arbitration Act, as held in Gujarat State Civil Supplies v. Mahakali Foods, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High...