High Courts
Appeal Against Order U/S 39(2) Arbitration Act Is Not Maintainable U/S 13 Commercial Courts Act: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), holding that no appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act lies against an order passed under section 39(2) of the Act. The court further held that the appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act is maintainable against those orders enumerated under Order 43 of the CPC or under section 37 of the Act and that section 39(2) does not fall within...
Award Passed After Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate Is Non-Est, Court Can't Extend Mandate Post-Award: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that an award passed after expiry of the arbitrator's mandate is non-est and unforceable holding that the court has no power to extend the mandate post award if no application seeking extension of the mandate was pending before the award was passed. A Division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar held that the award becomes operational only when it is written,dated and signed by the arbitrator giving reasons on which it is based and the...
Order Terminating Arbitration For Non-Filing Of Statement Of Claim Is Not 'Award', Cannot Be Challenged U/S 34 A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that an order terminating arbitral proceedings under section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) on account of non-filing of statement of claim does not amount to an arbitral award and therefore cannot be challenged under section 34. Justice Jasmeet Singh held that “the Award can only be considered to be an award once it adjudicates the rights of the parties. The order terminating the proceedings for non-filing of a statement of...
Principles Of Natural Justice Are Non-Negotiable In Arbitral Proceedings Even If Tribunal Is Comprised Of Lay Persons: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court, while setting aside an arbitral award, has observed that despite the arbitral Tribunal comprising elder family members, who are lay persons and not well-trained legal minds, the principles of natural justice have to be followed. If an award is passed without giving an opportunity to either of the sides to present their case, the same would violate Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, while hearing a challenge under ...
Bombay High Court Sets Aside ₹75 Lakh Compensation Awarded Against Hersheys India In Jumpin Drink Manufacturing Dispute
The Bombay High Court has recently set aside a Rs 75 lakh compensation awarded to Kanti Beverages Pvt. Ltd. against Hersheys India Pvt. Ltd. in a dispute over the contract to manufacture and package the fruit drink brand Jumpin. The court said the compensation was “picked virtually out of the hat” and had no basis.A single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, in an order made available on Monday, noted that the arbitral tribunal had categorically found that the contract between Hersheys and...
Deliberate Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Not Grounds To Resist Enforcement Of Award: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that when a party purposely fails to avail an opportunity duly accorded by the Arbitral Tribunal to present its case, it cannot later use its own default as a ground to resist enforcement of the resultant award. Facts The Petitioner, M/s Vittera BV (“Vittera”) filed the present petition seeking enforcement of the final award dated 30.04.2020 against the Respondent, M/s SKT Textile Mills (“SKT”) under Sections 47...
Arbitrators Cannot Be Disqualified For Merely Participating In Prior Arbitration Involving Interpretation Of Similar Clause: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) filed by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) against an arbitral award passed in favor of British Marine PLC.(Respondent). SAIL entered into Contract of Affreightment (COA) with the respondent for transportation of 3 million metric tonnes (±5%) of coking coal over five years. The court further held that just because arbitrators had interpreted a similar clause in the previous...
