#Arbitration

The Delhi High Court ruled that trademark infringement claims against an ex-licensee and its affiliates are arbitrable under the licence agreement as subordinate rights in personam, not rights in rem. Non-signatory affiliates are bound as persons claiming through the signatory, extending the arbitration clause to related entities.

The court held that a terminated development agreement is not an 'asset' under Section 14(1)(d), and the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) is confined to disputes arising directly from insolvency. This permits arbitration proceedings initiated by the corporate debtor to continue during CIRP.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a flawed Section 21 notice under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not strip an arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction when a valid arbitration agreement is in place. The court proceeded to appoint a sole arbitrator, clarifying that procedural defects in notice service cannot override the parties’ arbitration agreement.

The Delhi HC held that arbitrator recusal creates a vacancy to be filled under Section 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, not a termination attracting Section 32 remedies. This distinction allows parties to seek appointment of a substitute arbitrator rather than challenging a termination order, preserving the arbitration process.

The Delhi HC held a unilateral arbitrator appointment clause violates Section 18’s equal treatment principle, rendering it unenforceable. It underscores the need for equal treatment in arbitration clauses, affecting future unilateral appointment agreements.

Under Section 11(6A) the Calcutta HC limited the referral court’s role to checking arbitration agreement existence and timeliness, barring inquiry into merits or consumer forum orders. Thus the developer’s non consumer claims remain arbitrable despite any consumer forum order, affecting developers and homebuyers.

The Delhi High Court stayed a promoter’s termination, holding that dismissal in breach of the shareholders agreement warrants interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, protecting promoter rights pending arbitration.

The Supreme Court held that an exclusive jurisdiction clause selecting Goa courts fixes the arbitral seat, invalidating the Delhi High Court’s Section 11(6) appointment and clarifying that such clauses override venue provisions for parties and courts.

The Supreme Court held that a non-signatory may be joined as a veritable party in arbitration when a nexus with the arbitration agreement exists, upholding the referral court’s jurisdiction under Section 11 of the ACA, 1996 and clarifying doctrine scope.

A Section 16 jurisdictional objection decision constitutes an interim award challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The MP HC ruling lets parties challenge such jurisdictional orders, affecting arbitration under the Act.

The Delhi HC held that a Section 34 petition is barred only if filed after 90 days from receipt of the award, not its date, and directors are liable only with a personal guarantee or fraud, clarifying limitation and narrowing director exposure in loan agreements.

A pending civil suit on the same subject matter bars parallel arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It reinforces election of remedies barring duplicate forum litigation in partnership disputes.

The Supreme Court held that arbitration clauses in a Joint Venture Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding remain operative despite a separate Licence Agreement, affirming the doctrine of independent arbitration agreements. It clarified Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed the former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as the sole arbitrator, impacting parties to intertwined commercial contracts.

The SC ruled that an operational creditor whose claim is extinguished under IBC resolution plan may assert a set-off defence in arbitration initiated by resolution applicant, with no affirmative recovery. This limits clean-slate for OCs after CIRP.

A unilateral arbitrator appointment violating Section 12(5) renders award non-est, the Delhi HC held, requiring setting aside despite Section 34 challenge, meaning flawed appointments cannot be cured partially, affecting parties relying on awards.