Topic
Bombay High Court permits continuation of bank guarantees under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act post-award, where liquidated damages claims remain unresolved pending Section 34 challenges. The ruling underscores the need for security in public utility contracts, reconciling conflicting precedents on Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act.
The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their views when reviewing arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judgment clarifies that limitation for challenging an award begins only upon a clear refusal of performance, reinforcing the narrow scope of judicial intervention in arbitration matters.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that District Judges, even when acting as civil courts, lack jurisdiction to entertain Section 34 challenges to arbitral awards unless formally designated as Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This invalidates prior orders and mandates that all such objections be filed exclusively before constituted Commercial Courts, reshaping procedural strategy for businesses and state entities across India.
Delhi High Court reinforces that commission claims under representative agreements must demonstrate a direct, project-specific causative link-not just brand presence or general market facilitation. Arbitrators' factual findings on evidence are final unless perverse, and pre-institution interest remains discretionary under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act.
Bombay High Court holds that alleged admissions in letters cannot substitute specific pleadings in arbitration claims under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.