Arbitration Court Reckoner: September 2020
Live LawBy way of the present column, an attempt is made to briefly review the salutary judgments pronounced by the Courts in the month of September 2020 under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Chaitanya Construction Company v Delhi Jal Board High Court of Delhi took note of the fact that S. 7 of the Act itself provides that the arbitration agreement need not be in any concrete or particular form and held that the mere fact that the Respondent therein, who had invited tenders for the work in question, had not signed the agreement containing the arbitration clause was not a ground to hold that there was no arbitration clause. Section 17 Principles governing grant of injunctions, appointments of receiver etc are a part of substantive law of country within ambit of S. 28 In Flywheel Logistics Solutions P. Ltd. v Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. & Ors., High Court of Madras was dealing with challenge to orders passed by the arbitrator u/s 17 of the Act to seize the vehicles which had been purchased by way of loan agreement which was subject of arbitration. View of the Arbitrator plausible view and merits no interference In NHAI v Sahakar Global Ltd.¸ High Court of Delhi while dismissing the petition filed assailing the arbitral award held that not only was the scope of judicial interference in an arbitral award limited if the view taken by the Arbitrator is a possible view but also further held that the arbitrator has, after detailed analysis of the documents and pleadings, rightly come to the conclusion that implementation of GST by the Government of India constitutes change of law having material adverse affect on the obligations of parties and is thus a force majeure event as per the clause between the parties. Article 227 As no restriction either in the arbitration agreement or in the order of reference, counter claims can be raised In Ved Prakash Mithal & Sons v Principal, Kirori Mal College & Ors, High Court of Delhi was dealing with a petition impugning the order of the Arbitrator rejecting the Petitioner's application for rejection of counter claims on the ground that there was no specific reference of counter claim by the Court while referring the parties to arbitration u/s 8 of the Act and thus arbitral tribunal is precluded from entertaining the counter claim.