#Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction to extend an arbitral mandate under Section 29A lies exclusively with the 'court' defined in Section 2(1)(e), not the Section 11 appointing authority. A party waives its right to a three-member tribunal by twice consenting to a sole arbitrator and participating for 18 months. The IBC moratorium does not bar a corporate debtor from initiating arbitration to recover dues.

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 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.

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.

The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even though the respondent did not appear, holding that the court’s inquiry is confined to whether a valid arbitration agreement prima facie exists. This clarifies that a party’s absence does not bar appointment and limits judicial scrutiny at this stage, affecting contractors and respondents in arbitration disputes.

Delhi HC appoints sole arbitrator under Section 11 of Arbitration Act, 1996; inquiry limited to prima facie arbitration agreement; claim Rs.85,35,069/-.

Non-deposit of 75% award under Sec 19 MSME Act 2006 renders a Sec 34 challenge under Arbitration Act 1996 non-entertainable, Calcutta HC ruled, and without pre-deposit restoration applications are ineffective, clarifying jurisdictional bar for MSME arbitration.

The Delhi HC held that waiver of the right to object to an arbitrator’s appointment under Section 12(5) requires an express written agreement after the dispute; mere participation does not suffice. This clarifies the law for parties in arbitration.

The Calcutta High Court held that arbitral tribunals may grant Section 17 interim measures without first deciding Section 16 jurisdictional objections, treating such orders as neutral fact finding steps to preserve the status quo and enable relief in arbitration.