Arbitral Tribunals Exercising Power U/S 17 Not Strictly Bound By CPC: Calcutta High Court
2 years ago

Arbitral Tribunals Exercising Power U/S 17 Not Strictly Bound By CPC: Calcutta High Court

Live Law  

The Calcutta High Court has held that the arbitral tribunals while exercising powers under Section 17 of the A&C Act are not strictly bound by the technicalities of CPC. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf has extended the reasoning adopted by the Apex Court, in Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited, 2022 LiveLaw 765 wherein the SC held that Court exercising powers under Section 9 of A&C Act is not strictly bound by CPC, to Section 17 also by observing the scope of both the Sections is now almost pari passu. The tribunal, upon the oral representation of the parties, vide an order dated 07.03.2022 modified the orders dated 22.12.2021 and 14.02.2022 and directed that instead of entire balance amount, the respondent to open an interest-bearing fixed deposit account comprising 50% of the basic contract value plus 100% of taxes and duties payable on the HWM System in favour of the petitioner's advocate and that the amount would be released as an when it makes any further order in that regard. The Court has extended the reasoning adopted by the Apex Court, in Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited, 2022 LiveLaw 765 wherein the SC held that Court exercising powers under Section 9 of A&C Act is not strictly bound by CPC, to Section 17 also by observing the scope of both the Sections is now almost pari passu.

Court Parties Power Application Order Tribunal Respondent Strictly Both Parties Petitioner Adv Arbitral Section 17 Bank Guarantee Cpc Calcutta Hmw  exercising  order  arbitral  court  adv  power  petitioner  tribunal  respondent  bound  application  mr  strictly  high  tribunals  parties  cpc  calcutta

History of this topic

S. 21 CPC | Objections To Place Of Suing Can't Be Allowed Unless Taken In Court Of First Instance At Earliest Opportunity: Supreme Court
2 days ago

S. 21 CPC | Objections To Place Of Suing Can't Be Allowed Unless Taken In Court Of First Instance At Earliest Opportunity: Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court held that objections to jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, must be filed at the earliest, and no objection will be entertained at the belated stage unless injustice is caused. The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the appeal filed against the Calcutta High Court's decision, …

While Deciding Petition U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act, Court Cannot Ignore Basic Principles Of CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC
2 days, 21 hours ago

While Deciding Petition U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act, Court Cannot Ignore Basic Principles Of CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

Live Law  

The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and Nayapathy Vijay observed that in deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court cannot ignore the basic principles of the CPC. In exercise of its powers to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court is not strictly bound by the …

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [25th November To 1st December, 2024]
1 month ago

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up [25th November To 1st December, 2024]

Live Law  

Supreme Court S.29A Arbitration | 'Sufficient Cause' To Extend Time For Award Should Be Interpreted To Facilitate Effective Dispute Resolution : Supreme Court Case Title: M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. 34078 of 2023 The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor has held that Section 9 of the A&C Act is not the correct mechanism to obtain relief against …

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Arbitral Award, Only To Circumvent Statutory Requirement Of S.19 Of MSMED Act: Delhi High Court
1 month, 1 week ago

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Arbitral Award, Only To Circumvent Statutory Requirement Of S.19 Of MSMED Act: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing a writ petition challenging an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, has held that invoking the writ jurisdiction to challenge an arbitral award would circumvent the statutory requirement of pre-deposit u/s 19 of the MSMED Act, and would amount to defeating the legislative intent. …

Interim Measures U/s 17 Of Arbitration Act Affecting Third-Party Rights Is Appealable: Delhi High Court
5 months, 2 weeks ago

Interim Measures U/s 17 Of Arbitration Act Affecting Third-Party Rights Is Appealable: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that a third party, whose rights for a registered charge are affected by an arbitral award, can challenge such award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Regarding the creation of charge, the High Court held that the Dalmia Group failed to demonstrate the existence of …

Court Fully Empowered To Extend Mandate Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Under Section 29A(4): Delhi High Court
7 months, 1 week ago

Court Fully Empowered To Extend Mandate Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Under Section 29A(4): Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held the court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court and filed a petition under Sections 29A & of the …

Arbitral Award Can't Be Challenged U/S 47 CPC In Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On State
8 months, 3 weeks ago

Arbitral Award Can't Be Challenged U/S 47 CPC In Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On State

Live Law  

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. Courts must ensure that objections pertain solely to matters concerning execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree and do not encroach upon substantive rights or legal issues beyond the decree's scope.” The Court held that frivolous objections filed under Section 47 CPC must be dealt with strongly. and Sanjay Agarwal …

No Writ Against Order Of Tribunal Rejecting Application U/S 16 Of The A&C Act Unless It Shocks The Conscience Of The Court: Delhi High Court
9 months, 1 week ago

No Writ Against Order Of Tribunal Rejecting Application U/S 16 Of The A&C Act Unless It Shocks The Conscience Of The Court: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal rejecting an application challenging its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the A&C Act cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless the order is so perverse that it shocks the conscience of the Court. During pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner moved an application under …

Party Fails To Challenge Arbitral Award U/s 34 A&C Cannot Approach High Court Under Article 226: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition
10 months, 1 week ago

Party Fails To Challenge Arbitral Award U/s 34 A&C Cannot Approach High Court Under Article 226: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be invoked where a party has failed to invoke other remedies available to it under law. It held that if a party fails to challenge the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and …

Application Under Section 29(A) A&C Act Doesn't Constitute Express Waiver In Writing U/s 12(5) To Challenge Arbitrator's Ineligibility: Delhi High Court
10 months, 1 week ago

Application Under Section 29(A) A&C Act Doesn't Constitute Express Waiver In Writing U/s 12(5) To Challenge Arbitrator's Ineligibility: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that filing of the Section 29 application by a party did not amount to a waiver of its right to challenge the arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that filing an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act …

Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Can Appoint Commission For Getting Material Aspects Required For Settling Disputes: Kerala High Court
1 year, 1 month ago

Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Can Appoint Commission For Getting Material Aspects Required For Settling Disputes: Kerala High Court

Live Law  

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that that the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which has special power to regulate its own procedure, can appoint a Commission as well, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that appointment of such a Commission is necessary for getting certain material aspects, which are required for the purpose of deciding the matter …

Court Has Power To Issue Time Bound Directions To Collector Of Stamps To Decide On Unstamped Arbitration Agreements, Purpose Of Section 11(13) Of A&C Act Should Not Be Defeated: Delhi High Court
1 year, 4 months ago

Court Has Power To Issue Time Bound Directions To Collector Of Stamps To Decide On Unstamped Arbitration Agreements, Purpose Of Section 11(13) Of A&C Act Should Not Be Defeated: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has held the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act has the power to issue time bound directions to Collector of Stamps to decide on unstamped arbitration agreements to ensure that the mandate of Section 11 of the A&C Act that provides for expeditious disposal of Section 11 petition should not be defeated. …

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 10 July To 16 July 2023
1 year, 5 months ago

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 10 July To 16 July 2023

Live Law  

Supreme Court: Can Ineligible Person Appoint Arbitrator? High Courts: Delhi High Court: “Counter-Balancing” Not Achieved When 2/3rd Members Of The Arbitral Tribunal To Be Appointed By One Party: Delhi High Court Case Title: Margo Networks Pvt Ltd & Anr vs. Railtel Corporation of India Ltd The Delhi High Court has ruled that where a party is required to appoint an …

Well Reasoned Interim Order Of Arbitral Tribunal, Courts Should Not Interfere Under Section 37 Of The A&C Act : Delhi HC
1 year, 5 months ago

Well Reasoned Interim Order Of Arbitral Tribunal, Courts Should Not Interfere Under Section 37 Of The A&C Act : Delhi HC

Live Law  

The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court under Section 37 of the A&C Act should not interfere with a reasoned order of the tribunal granting interim relief based on thorough examination of the matter. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 invoked the dispute resolution clause and issued a notice for amicable settlement, however, upon the failure of the parties …

Order Passed Under Section 11 Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act Cannot Be Reviewed: Calcutta High Court
1 year, 10 months ago

Order Passed Under Section 11 Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act Cannot Be Reviewed: Calcutta High Court

Live Law  

The High Court of Calcutta that the A&C Act is a complete code in itself and it does not contain any provision for the review of an order passed under Section 11 of the Act. The Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that power of review is a creature of statute and unlike the Supreme Court which has inherent …

Court Not Powerless To Appoint Appropriate Arbitral Tribunal, Even If Party Forfeits Its Right Under Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court
1 year, 11 months ago

Court Not Powerless To Appoint Appropriate Arbitral Tribunal, Even If Party Forfeits Its Right Under Arbitration Clause: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court has ruled that even if a party’s right to appoint its nominee in the Arbitral Tribunal as per the arbitration clause, is forfeited because it failed to exercise its right within the statutory period after receiving the notice invoking arbitration, it would not render the Court powerless to appoint an appropriate Arbitral Tribunal, after considering the …

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings, Does Not Disentitle Party To Challenge Award On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator: Bombay High Court
2 years, 1 month ago

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings, Does Not Disentitle Party To Challenge Award On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court has ruled that merely because a party participated in the arbitration proceedings, it is not disentitled from challenging the arbitral award on the ground that the arbitration proceedings were vitiated due to the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator by the opposite party, falling foul of Section 12 read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and …

Constitution Of Arbitral Tribunal Does Not Restrict Application For Interim Relief If "Entertained" By The Court : Karnataka High Court Reiterates The Law
2 years, 5 months ago

Constitution Of Arbitral Tribunal Does Not Restrict Application For Interim Relief If "Entertained" By The Court : Karnataka High Court Reiterates The Law

Live Law  

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the restriction contained under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not apply once an application under Section 9 for interim measures has been "entertained" by the Court before the appointment of the arbitrator. The High Court observed that the application filed under Section 9 of the A&C Act was …

Prima Facie Case Alone Does Not Entitle A Party To Relief Under Section 17 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court
2 years, 5 months ago

Prima Facie Case Alone Does Not Entitle A Party To Relief Under Section 17 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a prima facie case alone does not entitle a party to relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim measures. Against the order of the Arbitral Tribunal directing the appellant to secure the said amount, the appellant filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court. The Court ruled …

Arbitrator Terminating The Arbitral Proceedings Under Section 25(A) Of The A&C Act, Challenge Maintainable Under Article 227 Of The Constitution Of India: Delhi High Court
2 years, 8 months ago

Arbitrator Terminating The Arbitral Proceedings Under Section 25(A) Of The A&C Act, Challenge Maintainable Under Article 227 Of The Constitution Of India: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has ruled that since no alternate remedy is available to the claimant to challenge the order of the arbitrator terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hence, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the said order of the arbitrator is ex facie maintainable. The …

Court Does Not Have Adjudicatory Powers Under Section 27 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court
2 years, 8 months ago

Court Does Not Have Adjudicatory Powers Under Section 27 Of The A&C Act: Bombay High Court

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Court does not have the jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to consider the legality of the reasons set out by the arbitral tribunal in its order permitting the examination of a witness. Kulkarni ruled that once the arbitral tribunal had formed a prima facie opinion that …

Discover Related