High Court
Intent Of S.11(6) Of Arbitration Act Is Not To Confer Jurisdiction On Courts Incompetent To Entertain Such Applications: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the intent of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be interpreted to confer jurisdiction on a court that is otherwise incompetent to entertain an application under this provision. Brief Facts: The present petitions arise from two Home Loan Agreements dated 31.03.2018...
If No Bonafide Negotiations Occur After Arbitration Notice, Period Cannot Be Excluded From Limitation: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that if, after the issuance of a notice invoking arbitration, no bonafide negotiations take place between the parties, and the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) expires, the time allegedly spent in such negotiations cannot be excluded...
Questions On Legality Of Revival Of Arbitral Proceedings To Be Adjudicated By Tribunal U/S 16 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while hearing a writ petition challenging the decision of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Respondent No. 1) to revive arbitral proceeding after closing the proceedings due to non-filing of the State of Claim (SOC) observed that since the proceedings have been revived, the Arbitral Tribunal is the competent authority to...
Appointing Arbitrator U/S 3(G)(5) Of National Highways Act Does Not Constitute Seat Of Arbitration, Is Rather A Convenient Venue: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench at Gwalior of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke has observed that appointment of arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5), National Highways Act, 1956 (“NH Act”) will not amount to the seat of the arbitrator rather it would be a convenient venue and therefore courts where a part of cause of action had arisen will also have jurisdiction over such...
Repetition Of Old & Overruled Arguments Not Sufficient To Reopen Concluded Adjudications In Review Petition Assailing Arbitration Order: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke has held that repetition of old and overruled arguments is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications as the review proceedings under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC challenging an arbitration order cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The scope of review is very limited. Brief Facts of...
Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Must Be Sought With 'Reasonable Expedition': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh Patil have held that an applicant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) must approach the court with reasonable expedition. Delay of several years without adequate explanation is a material factor that militates against the grant of such relief. The court observed that...
No Damages For Loss Of Profit In Absence Of Proof Of Missed Profitable Ventures Due To Delay In Contractual Payment: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that unless it is demonstrated that the delay in payment for the completion of the work contract prevented the contractor from undertaking other profitable ventures, damages for loss of profits cannot be awarded. Brief Facts: The impugned arbitral award arose from disputes under a contract dated...
Waiver To Section 12(5) Of Arbitration Act Has To Be Given After Constitution Of The Tribunal: Delhi High Court
Th Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the party giving no-objection to the applicability of Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) has to give such no-objection after the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The waiver to applicability has to be done after the arbitrators are appointed with the names and details. The Court...
Limitation For Application U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act Can't Be Bypassed By Claiming Advocate Was Not Authorised To Issue Notice: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the bar of limitation for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, cannot be circumvented merely on the ground that the demand-cum-arbitration invocation notice was issued by the petitioner's counsel without...
Arbitrator's Decision To Choose Internationally Recognised Formula Based On Expertise For Computing Damages Can't Be Faulted: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that different formulae may be applied depending on the circumstances, and the choice of method for computing damages falls within the arbitrator's discretion. Sections 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Contract Act) do not prescribe any specific formula for the calculation of damages. Therefore,...
[Arbitration] Initial Filing Without Essential Documents Non Est In Law, Limitation Can't Be Circumvented By Curing Defects: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that an initial filing made without the essential documents like attaching impugned award etc. required for adjudication is non est in law and has no legal existence. Such a filing, made merely to evade the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot...
Issuance Of Show Cause Notice U/s 74 Of CGST Act Does Not Imply Violation Of Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Section 74: Determination of tax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a show cause notice is issued under Section 74 Of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the matter is still at a preliminary stage, and objections can't be raised on...









![[Arbitration] Initial Filing Without Essential Documents Non Est In Law, Limitation Cant Be Circumvented By Curing Defects: Delhi High Court [Arbitration] Initial Filing Without Essential Documents Non Est In Law, Limitation Cant Be Circumvented By Curing Defects: Delhi High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2025/05/06/500x300_598730-justice-purushaindra-kumar-kaurav.webp)
