Mere Use Of Expression “Arbitration” Insufficient To Constitute A Binding Agreement U/S 7 Of A&C Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that mere use of the expression “Arbitration” in a clause will not automatically make the clause a binding arbitration agreement as contemplated under Section 7 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 unless there is a clear intent to refer disputes to Arbitration. The court observed that an arbitration agreement has to...

Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Alleging Simple Fraud No Bar To Arbitration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has allowed the arbitration proceedings to continue in multi-crore Bihar Public Distribution System (“PDS”) Scam, stating that mere pendency of the criminal proceedings in offences involving simple fraud like cheating, criminal breach of trust doesn't bar a dispute from being referred to an arbitration. “The mere fact that criminal proceedings can or have been...

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged Through Civil Suit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that an arbitral award cannot be challenged through a civil suit, as such a course is clearly barred under Section 5 read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Such a plaint deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), on the ground that it...

Mere Pendency Of Formal Signature By One Party Doesn't Preclude Parties From Being Referred To Arbitration: Delhi HC Allows Vedanta's Plea

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the mere pendency of a formal signature by one party, when the other party has signed the agreement after reading and understanding its terms, including the arbitration clause, does not prevent the parties from being referred to arbitration. The Petitioner has filed this petition under section 11(6) of the...

Disputes Arising Out Of 'Work Contract' With MP Govt Instrumentality Shall Be Referred To MP Arbitration Tribunal : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (July 30) reiterated that the disputes related to 'work contract' must be adjudicated exclusively by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (“1983 Act”). Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan refused to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling, which...

Civil Courts Not Prohibited From Granting Anti-Arbitration Injunction In Foreign-Seated Arbitration If Proceedings Are Vexatious: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that Civil Courts are not prohibited from granting anti arbitration injunction in a foreign seated arbitration if the proceedings are conducted in a vexatious and oppressive manner. The present application has been filed seeking an injunction against the ongoing arbitration before the International Chamber...

Proceedings Can Be Remitted Back To Same Arbitrator U/S 33 & 34(4) Of A&C Act Only Before Passing Of Award: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne, observed that a Section 34 Court can only remit back to the same Arbitration following the procedure for remand u/s 33 and 34(4). The act of the Appellant not issuing a notice u/s 21 of the A&C Act to the Respondent, and approaching the same Arbitration, who initiates...

Venue Is Construed As Seat In Absence Of Contrary Indicia, If Arbitration Agreement Only Mentions 'Venue': Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that when only one place is mentioned in the arbitration agreement and is termed as “venue”, the same is to be treated as the “seat” also, unless something contrary is mentioned in the agreement.“If the arbitration agreement mentions only one place and even if it is termed as the 'venue', then unless there is a contrary indicia the 'venue' is...

[Arbitration Act] S.34 Pleas Are Of Commercial Nature, Cannot Be Decided By Bench Having Ordinary Original Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai while deciding a Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) appeal, set aside an order passed in Section 34, ACA petition on the ground that the court passing it lacked the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The concerned judge had the power to determine only such applications under Section...

Commercial Courts Act Is Entity-Neutral In Terms Of Limitation; Govt Suffers Same Pitfalls As Private Entity: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court Division Bench, comprising Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, observed that the Commercial Courts Act 2015 is an entity-neutral statute in terms of the limitation period. The Commercial Courts Act 2015 is in place to ensure the speedy resolution of high-stakes commercial disputes. Factual Matrix: The Telangana...

Arbitration Half Yearly Digest 2025- Part 2

Supreme Court Arbitral Tribunal Can Proceed Against Party Though They Weren't Served With S.21 Notice Or Made Party In S.11 Application : Supreme Court Case Title: ADAVYA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S VISHAL STRUCTURALS PVT. LTD. & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5297 OF 2025 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 439 The Supreme Court recently observed that not being served with the...

Court Can Extend Mandate Of Arbitrator Multiple Times If Sufficient Cause Is Shown U/S 29A(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the courts are not prohibited from extending the mandate of the Arbitrator multiple times if sufficient cause is established under section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, it extended the mandate of the Arbitrator beyond the timeline set by the Supreme Court. This is the second filed by the Petitioner...