High Court-Delhi

Section 11 of the Arbitration Act should not be misused by the parties in order to force other party to the Arbitration Agreement to participate in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process | The issues which have been analyzed by the Tribunal need not be referred back to the Tribunal once again – Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. NHPC Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]

Section 11 of the Arbitration Act should not be misused by the parties in order to force other party to the Arbitration Agreement to participate in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process | The issues which have been analyzed by the Tribunal need not be referred back to the Tribunal once again – Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. NHPC Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Can an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award be filed without filing the copy of the award, to save the period of limitation u/s 34(3)? – KGF Cottons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is for setting aside the Award. It cannot be said that a challenge to an Award filed without the Award itself would be a valid filing. Without the Award, the challenge would become meaningless because unless the Award is perused by the Court, it cannot adjudicate upon the appropriateness and correctness of the Award. An application under Section 34 of the Act filed without an Award and admittedly without a vakalatmana can only be a stack of papers filed only to save the limitation.

Can an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award be filed without filing the copy of the award, to save the period of limitation u/s 34(3)? – KGF Cottons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the Act is neither in the nature of an appellate remedy or akin to the power of revision – Center for Research Planning and Action Vs. National Medicinal Plants Board Ministry of Ayush Government of India – Delhi High Court

A plain reading of Section 34 reveals that the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited, and the Court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to determine whether the award is good or bad. Even an award that may not be reasonable or is non-speaking to some extent cannot ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts. It is also well settled that even if two views are possible, there is no scope for the Court to reappraise the evidence and take a different view from that taken by the arbitrator.

The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the Act is neither in the nature of an appellate remedy or akin to the power of revision – Center for Research Planning and Action Vs. National Medicinal Plants Board Ministry of Ayush Government of India – Delhi High Court Read Post »

In the case where an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed, the date of disposal would be the starting point for calculation of limitation – TEFCIL Breweries Ltd. Vs. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. – Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that to state that the date of receipt of the corrected award even in cases where an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed will be taken as the starting point of the time period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not the date of the disposal would actually go contrary to the plain reading of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

In the case where an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed, the date of disposal would be the starting point for calculation of limitation – TEFCIL Breweries Ltd. Vs. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Are transactions between partnership firm and the creditors commercial in nature within under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? – Manisha Gupta Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Ors. – Delhi High Court

The transactions between partnership firm and defendant nos. 2, 5, 11 and 12 are commercial in nature within the meaning of Explanation II of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) though not under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Are transactions between partnership firm and the creditors commercial in nature within under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? – Manisha Gupta Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Pre-arbitral procedures (conciliation/ mediation) are directory in nature and not mandatory and non-exhaustion thereof does not preclude a party from taking recourse to arbitration – Sri Ganesh Engineering Works Vs. Northern Railway and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Pre-arbitral procedures (conciliation/ mediation) are directory in nature and not mandatory and non-exhaustion thereof does not preclude a party from taking recourse to arbitration – Sri Ganesh Engineering Works Vs. Northern Railway and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top