Arbitrator's Order Determining Substantive Rights Of Parties Constitutes “Award”, Amenable To Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that orders passed by the Arbitrator during the pendency of Arbitral proceedings, which finally determines any substantive rights of the parties, constitutes an interim Arbitral Award, and can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,...

Irregularity & Curable Defect Cannot Be Grounds For Dismissal Of Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: J&K High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta held that the failure of the Chief Engineer to sign the pleadings, which were signed by the Garrison Engineer would only be an irregularity and a curable defect and would not entail dismissal of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act without providing...

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Petition, Party Must Use Remedy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that it cannot entertain a writ petition challenging an arbitral award, and the petitioner should challenge the award by taking recourse to appropriate remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: The present petition challenged an arbitral award passed pursuant to reference to arbitration under Section...

Expert Tribunal's Award Did Not Suffer From Patent Illegality, Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited, and the Court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to determine whether the award is good or bad.In the present case, the court held that the expert tribunals award did not suffer from...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 6th January To 12th January 2025

Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside Awards Of Over Rs 46 Lakhs Passed Against UP Govt In Sham Arbitration Proceedings Case Details : STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER VERSUS R.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10212 OF 2014 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 45 The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 9) set aside two ex-parte arbitration awards on grounds of fraud played...

Unilateral Appointment Clause Of Arbitrator Hinders Equal Participation Of Parties In Appointment Process: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that a clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the parties in the appointment process...

Pendency Of Civil Or Criminal Litigation Between Partners Cannot Estop Either Partner From Invoking Arbitration Clause: Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal has held that pendency of a civil and criminal litigation inter se partners, cannot estop one of the partners from invoking the arbitration clause or bar the reference of dispute for adjudication to an arbitrator for determination. Brief Facts: This petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act...

Matter Relating To Partnership Act & Partnership Deed Where Third-Party Rights Are Involved Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench of Justice Anand Pathak held that when matter relates to Partnership Act and partnership deed and third-party rights are also involved then it cannot be referred to arbitration. Brief Facts: M/s Om Jai Gurudev is a partnership firm in which 11 partners existed initially. The partnership deed for the firm was constituted on 18.07.2017 and the...

[Arbitration Act] Section 8 Application Must Be Filed Before Or Simultaneously With Written Statement: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Subhendu Samanta held that when no application for reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is made by either party, the civil court may very well entertain the suit and proceed with the adjudication of the same on merits in accordance with law. Also, the court held that the...

Commercial Court Committed Jurisdictional Error By Imposing Pre-Condition To Deposit 50% Of Amount For Stay Against Arbitral Award: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal has held that the Commercial Court has committed jurisdictional error in exercising its discretion arbitrarily, mechanically and injudiciously, while putting the condition to deposit 50% of the awarded amount, for operating stay against arbitral award without assigned justified and sound reasonings. Additionally, the court...

Application For Extension Of Time Cannot Be Dismissed Due To Mentioning S.151 Of CPC Instead Of S. 29A Of Arbitration Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has held that it is well-settled law that mere mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court. Brief Facts: The applicant/petitioner has filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for extension of time to comply with the order...

Date Of Receipt Of Corrected Award Would Be Taken As Disposal Date U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act, Even When Application U/S 33 Has Been Filed: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that taking the date of receipt of the corrected award as the starting point and not as the date of disposal would actually go contrary to the plain reading of Section 34(3) of the Act. This will apply even in cases where an application under Section 33 of the Act has been filed. Brief Facts: The parties entered into...