Arbitration Court Reckoner : November & December 2020
Live LawSection 2 & Section 2 Concept of emergency arbitration is not outside the scope or contrary to Part-1 of the Act In Future Retail Ltd. v Amazon.com Investment Holdings LLC & Ors., High Court of Delhi was dealing with a case where the international commercial arbitration was seated in India but was to be conducted in accordance with SIAC Rules and the question arose as to whether the provisions of Emergency Arbitration in the SIAC rules, are in any manner contrary to/repugnant with the public policy of India, or with the mandatory requirements of the procedural law under the Act. In Pearl Hospitality & Events P. Ltd. v Oyo Hotels & Homes P. Ltd. High Court of Delhi held that before exercising jurisdiction under S. 9, the Court has to satisfy itself that there exists an arbitration agreement, an arbitral dispute and manifest intention, on the part of the petitioner, to initiate arbitral proceedings the existence of circumstances which require grant of interim protection and urgent necessity. Section 12 Amended S. 12 not applicable to arbitral proceedings which commenced prior to 23.10.2015 even if arbitration clause provided that provisions of 1996 Act with statutory modifications would be applicable In ABB India Ltd. v Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. High Court of Delhi rejected the argument that an arbitration clause which provided "the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or statutory modifications or re-enactments thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause", would result in making Section 12 of the Act, as inserted by the 2015 Amendment Act, applicable to arbitral proceedings which had commenced prior to 23.10.2015. Section 34 Seat of arbitration provided in agreement can be changed only by amendment in writing signed by parties In Goyal MG Gases P. Ltd. v Steel Authority of India, High Court of Delhi was dealing with a case where the arbitration clause provided that arbitration would be held in Durgapur, West Bengal but the parties had consented to arbitration being held in New Delhi, as recorded in an order of the Arbitral Tribunal and the award was passed in New Delhi. Interim orders passed during the pendency of an application under S. 9 are appealable under S. 37 and not just the final order In SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation v Power Mech Projects Limited, High Court of Delhi held that a direction, that the Bank Guarantee, to be furnished to secure awarded amount, be of a Scheduled Indian Bank only, would be covered within the meaning of an order granting "any" measure under S. 9, within the meaning of S. 37 of the Act and within the meaning of "judgment or order" of a Commercial Division of a High Court within the meaning of S. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act and appeal would lie against the same.