All High Courts
Income Tax Act Doesn't Contemplate Hiatus Between Handing Over & Receipt Of Documents By AO Of Non-Searched Entity: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court made it clear that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “does not contemplate a hiatus” between handing over and receipt of information or documents pertaining to a non-searched entity.For context, Section 153C allows the Revenue department to proceed against a party other than the person who is being searched, if incriminating articles belonging to the other...
'Conduct Is Disquieting To Court's Conscience': Delhi High Court Dismisses Applications For Condonation Of Delay In Filing & Re-Filing Appeal
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Harishankar and Ajay Digpaul observed that the conduct of the appellants in this case is deeply troubling to the court's conscience. They neither informed the respondents about the filing of the present appeals nor disclosed the same to the court, even though the respondents' appeals challenging the same arbitral award had been listed and...
Court Is Not Appropriate Forum To Seek Interim Relief During Arbitration Proceedings: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the appropriate forum for seeking interim relief after the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is the Tribunal itself under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. Recourse to the court under Section 9 is permitted during the arbitration proceedings only if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be...
Interim Measures U/S 9 Of Arbitration Can't Be Sought By MSME During Conciliation Proceedings: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act can be sought by the MSME only after mandatory conciliation before the MSME Council fails and the dispute proceeds to arbitration—either conducted by the Council or referred to an arbitral institution. Only then do the provisions of the Arbitration...
[Arbitration Act] Opposite Party's Failure To Reply To S.21 Notice Doesn't Imply Consent To Appointment Of Named Arbitrator: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh while setting aside an arbitral award has observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator vitiates the award and if the opposite party fails to reply to the notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”), then such inaction cannot lead to an inference as to implied consent or acquiescence of the...
Interest Ceases To Accrue On Decretal Amount Deposited In Court Registry When Award Holder Has Knowledge Of Deposit: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that once the Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount with the court registry pursuant to a court order, and the Award Holder has notice of such deposit, interest on the deposited amount ceases to accrue. Consequently, interest can only be claimed on the remaining outstanding amount, not on the sum...
Pre-Deposit Of Awarded Amount Through Bye-Laws For Entertaining Plea U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Impermissible: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that Bye-laws may serve as operational guidelines, but they cannot impose conditions that conflict with statutory rights. The Court held that when there is no requirement of depositing the awarded amount as a precondition for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to set aside an award, any attempt...
Mandate Of MSME Council Not Automatically Terminated For Failure To Refer Dispute To Arbitration Within 90 Days: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council to refer a dispute to arbitration under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, following the failure of conciliation under Section 18(2), is not automatically terminated if the referral is not made within 90 days as prescribed...
[Arbitration Act] S.37 Not An Efficacious Alternate Remedy After Rejection Of Plea U/S 34 Seeking Enhanced Compensation: Bombay High Court
The Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justices Jitendra Jain and M.S. Sonak allowed writ petitions seeking enhanced solatium under National Highways Act, 1956 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Tarsem Singh and Ors. While doing so the Court rejected the argument of the Respondent that the petitions ought to be dismissed as the Petitioners...
Execution Of Discharge Voucher Not A Bar To Claim Higher Compensation If Provided For By IRDA Circular: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that once the liability or quantum of a claim under an insurance policy is established, the Insurance Company must not withhold the claim amount and must comply with Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Circular which entitles the Insured to claim a higher amount. It further held that the Circular...
Appointment Of Arbitrator As 'Observer' In Another Matter Does Not Render Him Ineligible Under 5th & 7th Schedule Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the appointment of an arbitrator as an observer in a matter unrelated to the arbitration dispute does not constitute de facto or de jure ineligibility under the Fifth or Seventh Schedules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Consequently, the arbitrator's mandate cannot be terminated on this...
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...





![[Arbitration Act] Opposite Partys Failure To Reply To S.21 Notice Doesnt Imply Consent To Appointment Of Named Arbitrator: Delhi High Court [Arbitration Act] Opposite Partys Failure To Reply To S.21 Notice Doesnt Imply Consent To Appointment Of Named Arbitrator: Delhi High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2021/06/04/500x300_394509-justice-jyoti-singh-and-delhi-hc.jpg)


![[Arbitration Act] S.37 Not An Efficacious Alternate Remedy After Rejection Of Plea U/S 34 Seeking Enhanced Compensation: Bombay High Court [Arbitration Act] S.37 Not An Efficacious Alternate Remedy After Rejection Of Plea U/S 34 Seeking Enhanced Compensation: Bombay High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/10/17/500x300_566535-justices-mahesh-sonak-and-jitendra-jain-bombay-hc.webp)

