Arbitration-High Court

Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is not akin to Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – NBCC (India) Ltd. Vs. Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is not akin to Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is pertinent to mention that while the power under Section 11(6) is exercised by a referral court, the reference under the MSMED Act is exercised by the council.

The issue of lack of inherent jurisdiction can be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal appointed under the MSMED Act, which by virtue of Section 18(3) of MSMED Act is competent to rule on its own jurisdiction as also the other issues in view of Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is not akin to Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – NBCC (India) Ltd. Vs. Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

No notice is expected to be issued to Beneficial Owner under Domain Name Dispute Resolution and would not have locus to file a petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, in case where a Service Provider(hosting/Website Management) registered domain in his name as Registrant and not in the name of Beneficial Owner – Mukesh Udeshi Vs. Jindal Steel Power Ltd. – Delhi High Court

On many occasions, certain companies and individuals may engage a professional entity for registering domain names and hosting websites. However, if such service providers list themselves as the Registrants of the domain names and the beneficial owner is not reflected as the Registrant, no notice is expected to be issued to such a third party, as they would be unknown persons/entities, under the INDRP.

No notice is expected to be issued to Beneficial Owner under Domain Name Dispute Resolution and would not have locus to file a petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, in case where a Service Provider(hosting/Website Management) registered domain in his name as Registrant and not in the name of Beneficial Owner – Mukesh Udeshi Vs. Jindal Steel Power Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

In Agreement, Forum Selection Clause has to be read along with Arbitration Clause – Mala Roy and Ors. Vs. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. – Calcutta High Court

In this case, arbitration clause contains the words “arising out of or in relation to the Agreement as to the validity of this Agreement” and Forum Selection Clause contains the words “arising out of or in relation to the Agreement”. The respondent argues that the scope of reference is restricted to the validity of the agreement only and the previous words in the said Clause only qualify the same.

Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the Forum Selection Clause cannot be divorced from the Arbitration Clause so as to stand on an entirely independent footing. The selection of a forum cannot exist in thin air but is directly relatable to the dispute which is to be decided by such forum. Hence, an indication of the scope of disputes to be decided before the forum can also be derived from a Forum Selection Clause. The Forum Selection Clause has to be read along with the Arbitration Clause, since it does not supplant but supplements the Arbitration Clause and qualifies the same, providing merely the forum for redressal of the disputes which are indicated there. Hence, there must be an identity in the ambit of disputes covered by the arbitration clause and the forum selection clause.

In Agreement, Forum Selection Clause has to be read along with Arbitration Clause – Mala Roy and Ors. Vs. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »

Unless a Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ought not to be exercised – Mr. Rajan Chadha and Anr. Vs. Mr. Sanjay Arora and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:
(i) To punish a contemnor, the disobedience should be willful. Element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to hold a party guilty of contempt. It has been held time and again that contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts, and the said proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the standard of proof required in these proceedings, is beyond all reasonable doubt.
(ii) Since the company is undergoing CIRP, all the assets and management of the company are with the Resolution Professional. Further, the liability of loan installments, in the form of claim submitted by the South Indian Bank, is also with the Resolution Professional. Thus, the respondent no. 1 has no control over the assets, management and liabilities of the Company. Thus, it is manifest that the R1 has been unable to pay the EMIs to the bank due to his financial inability and constraints, due to circumstances, as brought forth before this Court.

Unless a Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ought not to be exercised – Mr. Rajan Chadha and Anr. Vs. Mr. Sanjay Arora and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Whether the Court which is enforcing an International Arbitration Award is empowered to direct payment of interest on the amount awarded, from the date of the award till the date of payment, when the award does not contemplate payment of any interest – International Nut Alliance LLC Vs. John’S Cashew Co – Kerala High Court

Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that:

(i) The provision of Section 31 of Arbitration Act does not and cannot deal with the form and content of a foreign award.
(ii) Section 31(7)(b) cannot be indirectly introduced to a proceeding under Part II of the Act, for enforcement of a foreign award.
(iii) If the Arbitrators did not award interest despite such a provision being available under the Rules, it was for the petitioner to have approached the appropriate forum for correction of the award.
(iv) Even otherwise, the executing court cannot go behind the decree sought to be executed. The foreign award is a deemed decree and no provision for payment of interest can be read into the award/decree.
(v) Section 31(7) insofar as it prescribes the rate of interest and the right for interest, is a substantive provision applicable to domestic awards. The provisions contained in Part I cannot replace the lex arbitrai by a process of interpretation as lex fori.

Whether the Court which is enforcing an International Arbitration Award is empowered to direct payment of interest on the amount awarded, from the date of the award till the date of payment, when the award does not contemplate payment of any interest – International Nut Alliance LLC Vs. John’S Cashew Co – Kerala High Court Read Post »

Whether the extension of the mandate of an arbitral tribunal, may be granted under Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even after expiry of the mandate – Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs. Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court referring various judgment, held that in view of the fact that the expression used in Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is “prior to or after expiry of the period so specified”, this Court is fully empowered to extend the mandate, even after expiry of the mandate of the ld. Arbitral Tribunal.

Whether the extension of the mandate of an arbitral tribunal, may be granted under Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even after expiry of the mandate – Power Mech Projects Ltd. Vs. Doosan Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Whether if an action in rem against Vessel cannot be referred to arbitration, the same cannot be circumvented by merely invoking arbitration – OSV Crest Mercury 1 (IMO 9724398) Vs. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court

(2024) ibclaw.in 484 HC IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY OSV Crest Mercury 1 (IMO 9724398)v.Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Whether if an action in rem against Vessel cannot be referred to arbitration, the same cannot be circumvented by merely invoking arbitration – OSV Crest Mercury 1 (IMO 9724398) Vs. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top