When Parties Cannot Agree Upon Rules Governing Arbitration, Independent Clause Conferring Exclusive Jurisdiction Prevails: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar, while hearing a section 11 petition, observed that Courts at Durgapur would have the exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding vide Clause 46.2.4 of the GCC, as the parties could not agree upon the rules of arbitration governing the proceedings as provided under Clause 46.2.5. Factual Matrix: The Respondent No....

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Prevails Over Arbitrator's Procedural Order In Determining 'Seat' Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that an 'exclusive jurisdiction clause' in the arbitration agreement unequivocally denotes the 'seat' of arbitration. The court observed that any contrary determination made by the Arbitrator without the express written consent of the parties only relates to a 'venue' under Section 20(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation...

OPC & Its Sole Director Can't Be Treated As One For Liability Owed: Bombay HC Grants Relief To Director In Dispute Over MasterChef Production

The Bombay High Court has observed that sole director of a One Person Company (“OPC”), cannot be treated parallelly with the separate legal entity.The court set aside the directions in the impugned order dated 10/07/2024 directing Mr. Saravana Prasad ("Prasad") to deposit Rs. 10.40 crores in a fixed deposit, and disclose all assets and all encumbrances, charges and...

"Purchase Order Containing Arbitration Clause Will Supercede Tax Invoice Which Does Not Contain Arbitration Clause": Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar while allowing an application for appointment for arbitrator observed that the terms and conditions of the purchase order including the arbitration agreement would prevail over and supersede the terms and conditions of the tax invoice which does not contain an arbitration clause. The Court held that the purchase order was the...

WhatsApp, Email Communications Between Parties Can Constitute Valid Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that communications between the parties through WhatsApp and emails can constitute a valid arbitration agreement. Justice Jasmeet Singh perused Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act and said that it is not necessary for a concluded contract to be in existence for a valid arbitration agreement to be existing between the parties.The Court was dealing with a...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: [23rd June-29th June 2025]

High Courts Bombay High Court Contractor Cannot Be Denied Payment For Extra Work Approved By Railways Through Their Actions: Bombay High Court Case Title: Union of India Through The General Manager Central Railway Versus PLR HC RBR JV Case Number: COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.51 OF 2024 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 16th June - 22nd June 2025

High Courts Bombay High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against BCCI, Directs Payment Of ₹538.9 Crore To Defunct IPL Franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala Case Title: Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Anr. Case Number: ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1752 OF 2015 and ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1753 OF 2015 The Bombay High Court...

Sole Arbitrator's Appointment By One Party Due To Other Party's Inaction After Notice Is Not Unilateral: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya has held that an arbitrator appointed by one party in accordance with the agreed terms, after giving due notice, cannot be challenged as a unilateral appointment if the other party was given a full and fair opportunity to nominate its arbitrator but chose not to act. In such a situation, enforcement of a foreign award cannot...

Party That Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Not Barred From Challenging Appointment U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that a party that unilaterally appoints an arbitrator is not prohibited from challenging the award on the ground that it violates Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. Mere exercise of the power to make such an appointment does not constitute an express written waiver...

Plaint Can't Be Rejected Under O.VII R.11 Of CPC Due To Arbitration Clause Unless Application U/S 8 Of A&C Act Is Filed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that if a proper application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must refer the parties to arbitration and may reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by law. However, if no such application is filed and no prayer is made...

MSME Council's Order Declaring Jurisdiction To Decide Dispute Between Parties Can Be Challenged Only U/S 34 Of A&C Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra has held that once the MSME Council initiates arbitration following the termination of conciliation proceedings, any order passed by the Council regarding its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute can only be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The aggrieved party cannot invoke Article 227 of...

When Party Questions Validity Of Draft Agreement Containing Arbitration Clause, Reference Can't Be Sought Based On It: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Sri Justice P. Sam Koshy and Sri Justice N. Tukaramji has held that when a party, in its reply to a Section 8 petition under the Arbitration Act, has expressly denied the existence or validity of the agreements containing the arbitration clause by terming them null and void, such agreements cannot subsequently be relied upon by the same party as the basis...