No Bar On Arbitrator To Allow Withdrawal Of Claims Provided Legitimate Interests Of Other Party Are Not Prejudiced: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale has held that the arbitrator can allow the parties to withdraw their claims to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings by issuing a new notice of arbitration, provided that the legitimate interests of the other party are not prejudiced. Brief Facts: An agreement was executed between the Petitioner, in the lead Petition i.e. Ketan Shah and Anugrah Stock & Broking Private Limited ('Anugrah') as a...

Limitation Cannot Be Decided As Preliminary Issue Without Recording Whether It Is A Mixed Question Of Law And Fact: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik has held that an arbitrator is not permitted to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue without first recording a finding as to whether it is a mixed question of law and fact that requires evidence to be led. It further held that if such a finding is not recorded and the issue is nonetheless decided as a preliminary issue, the award can be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and...

Bombay High Court Directs Developer Of Lodha Worli Towers To Collect Maintenance At Rate Agreed Upon Between Parties Until Arbitral Proceedings Are Completed

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan the developer of Lodha World Towers in a petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) has been directed to charge the Federation Common Area Maintenance (FCAM) Charges at the rate agreed upon in the agreement executed between the parties, until the arbitral proceedings are completed. Brief Facts: This group of petitions have been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act ...

Tenants Occupying Premises Which Fall Under Development Agreement Cannot Be Evicted U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that Eviction of tenants governed by the Rent Control Act cannot be sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), particularly when they are not parties to the Development Agreement executed between the Developer and the Landlords and are not being provided upgraded premises in the redeveloped building compared to what they currently occupy under the tenancy agreements. Brief...

Invocation Of Section 9 & Section 11 Of Arbitration Act Does Not Constitute Parallel Proceedings: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court single bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that the mere invocation of Section 9 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not amount to parallel proceedings. Further, the High Court noted that Section 9 is intended to provide interim relief to safeguard the subject matter of arbitration. On the other hand, Section 11 is limited to the appointment of an arbitrator when there is a dispute regarding the arbitration agreement. Brief...

All Claims Which Are Not Part Of Resolution Plan Shall Stand Extinguished, No Person Entitled To Initiate Any Proceedings Over Such Claims: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed an Interim Application filed by the Appellant seeking the release of the bank guarantees, stating that all claims which are not part of the Resolution Plan shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of any such claim. Brief Facts The present case involves Garden Silk Mills Limited as the appellant and Gayatri Industries along with other respondents....

Arbitrator's Decision To Postpone Issue Of Partnership Firm's Dissolution To Stage Of Final Hearing Not Perverse: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that the decision of the Arbitrator to postpone the issue of determining the date of dissolution of the partnership firm to the stage of final hearing cannot be considered perverse for the purpose of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), as it requires evidence to be presented, which is necessary for such an issue to be decided. Brief Facts: The parties entered...

Benefit Of S.14 Of Limitation Act Extends To Delayed Filing Of Petition U/S 34 Of A&C Act Due To Prosecution In Good Faith In Another Court: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) can be extended to the petitioner who committed delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) due to the prevailing legal position at the time of filing, which was subsequently changed. Brief Facts: Disputes and differences had...

Court Must Assign Reasons For Accepting Or Rejecting Grounds Of Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be dismissed merely by stating that the scope of interference is limited; the court must address each ground of challenge and provide reasoned findings. Brief Facts: The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'NAFED') and the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'REPL') entered into two Tie Up...

Bombay High Court Injuncts Owner Of Kapani Resorts From Alienating Any Interest In Properties Until Conclusion Of Arbitral Proceedings

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has injuncted the owner of Kapani Resorts and Greater Kailash Property from alienating any interest in the Resorts and the property under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), until the conclusion of arbitral proceedings Brief Facts: Under the Agreement executed between Mr. Manmohan Kapani (Petitioner) and the Respondents, the petitioner will infuse USD 1 million in the Kapani Resorts to...

Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Leaves It Open To Parties To Choose To Arbitrate Again: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somsekhar Sundaresan has observed that once an arbitral award has been set aside by the court in the exercise of its powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties would be restored to the original position and a fresh arbitration in such circumstances would not amount to the proverbial “second bite at the cherry”. Background In disputes between the Applicant, Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd....

Arbitration Clause In Invoices Can Be Binding On Parties When They Acted Upon The Invoices And No Objections Were Raised: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that where the correspondence between the parties included invoices which contained an arbitration clause and the parties acted upon those invoices without protesting, then it could be deemed that the party had accepted the arbitration clause. Background Facts and Issue The Respondent had availed of services of the Petitioner for outdoor advertisements on hoardings. The Petitioner made a claim for...