Waiting for arbitration not an obstacle to maintaining an Admiralty lawsuit for the arrest of the ship: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs. OSV Crest Mercury 1
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 270
The Bombay High Court has held that the expectation of arbitration between parties on the same cause of action is not a bar to bringing an admiralty action.
The Bench of Justice NJ Jamadar held that the mere fact that the shipowner instituted arbitration against the charterer would not prevent the charterer from bringing an action in admiralty for the recovery of his rights and the arrest of the ship in the context of an action in rem.
Section 29A of the A&C Act applies prospectively, does not apply to arbitration that commenced before the 2015 amendment: Bombay Supreme Court
Case Title: Meenanath Fatarpekar v MicroStrategy India Pvt. ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 268
The Bombay High Court ruled that Section 29A of the A&C Act which provides for a 12-month time limit for making an arbitral award would not apply to arbitration which commenced before the 2015 amendment to the Act.
Bench GS Kulkarni held that the provisions of Section 29A of the A&C Act, which was incorporated into the main act via the Amendment Act 2015, would not apply to an arbitration proceeding. commenced on February 3, 2015 as under section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act, the amendment entered into force on October 23, 2015.
Delhi High Court:
Facilitation Board Order, after Termination of Conciliation under MSMED Act, Not Enforceable: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/s. Unicon engineers against M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 722
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order made by the Facilitation Board under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 (MSMED Act) after termination of conciliation, without submitting the dispute to arbitration or referring it to an arbitration institution or center, is void and does not constitute an arbitration award. Therefore, the Court ruled that it could not be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (A&C Act).
The single bench of Judge Prateek Jalan reiterated that conciliation and arbitration proceedings cannot be bludgeoned.
Arbitrator cannot alter the express terms of the agreement between the parties by applying the business efficiency test: Delhi High Court
Case title: Food Corporation of India v Adani Agri Logistics Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 718
The Delhi High Court ruled that the arbitrator cannot alter the express terms of the agreement by applying the commercial efficiency test where there is no ambiguity as to the intent of the parties.
Bench Vibhu Bakhru held that the Penta test as proposed by the Supreme Court in Nabha Power Ltd v Punjab State Power Corp. ltd. only serves to determine intent when the terms of the agreement are not express or are silent on one aspect, and so it would have no application when there is no ambiguity as to the contract between the parties.
Simply because the interlocutory order of the arbitral tribunal is not contestable under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the remedy is not written under Sections 226 and 227: Delhi High Court
Business Title: Easy Trip Planners Ltd. against One97 Communications Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 717
The Delhi High Court has ruled that simply because an interlocutory order made by the arbitral tribunal is not subject to challenge under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ( A&C Act), the remedy provided in Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not be available against the said order.
Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that a party can only apply to the Court against an interim order made in the arbitral proceedings if the order is subject to appeal under Article 37 of the A&C law.
Where primary relief is rejected by arbitral tribunal, which included interim relief, interim relief awarded in isolation is incorrect: Delhi High Court
Deal Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. against Five Star Constructions Pvt. ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 712
The Delhi High Court has ruled that where the main relief sought by the claimant has been rejected by the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral tribunal cannot award any interim or ancillary amount, which is included in the same claim, in favor of the claimant.
The single bench of Judge Sanjeev Narula held that when the main measure is rejected by the arbitral tribunal, axiomatically, the provisional measure must also be rejected.
Sections 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act are mandatory provisions, the arbitrator must give reasons for not awarding compound interest: Delhi High Court
Business title: Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. against Bhatia Engineering Company
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 711
The Delhi High Court upheld the lower court’s order quashing an arbitral award for failing to award interest under Sections 15 and 16, which are mandatory provisions of the MSMED Act.
Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Judge Amit Mahajan held that once the arbitrator finds that the MSMED law applies to the dispute between the parties, he must give reasons for not awarding interest in accordance with the articles 15 and 16 of the law.
Karnataka High Court:
Mentioning the referral of the case to the arbitral institution is sufficient; Party not required to appoint arbitrator: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M/s Geosmin Studio Sustainable Solutions LLP v M/s Ethnus Consultancy Services Pvt. ltd.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a notice given by a party that the case will be referred to the Architecture Council is sufficient to invoke the arbitration clause, since the Architecture Council is an institution of arbitration within the meaning of section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
The Single Bench of Judge Suraj Govindaraj held that it is enough that there is a mention to refer the matter to the institution for arbitration and that there is no specific requirement that a party appoint an arbitrator.
The arbitration clause can be invoked against disputes under another agreement, if the two agreements form a composite transaction: Supreme Court of Karnataka
Case title: M/s Bestpay Solutions Private Limited v M/s Razorpay Software Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a party may invoke the arbitration clause contained in one agreement in respect of disputes arising with a third party under another agreement, if the two agreements refer to one each other and form a composite transaction.
The Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that if any of the necessary parties did not receive legal notice, said legal notice would be faulty and not in accordance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 .