#arbitration clause

The Bombay High Court ruled that the RERA Appellate Tribunal cannot adjudicate merits when the Regulatory Authority dismissed a complaint on maintainability grounds without a merits hearing. Doing so would deprive parties of their statutory right to first-instance adjudication and a subsequent appeal. The Tribunal must remand the matter to the Authority for fresh merits determination.

Rajasthan HC dismisses writ petition challenging railway contract rescission: no territorial jurisdiction at Jodhpur, disputed facts require arbitral forum, 45 days to invoke alternative remedy.

Bombay HC grants interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, preserving the assets and accounts of M/s. Radio Restaurant pending arbitration. The court directs respondents to disclose assets, produce financial records, and deposit profits, appointing a receiver to prevent dissipation of the deceased partner's 25% share.

The Bombay High Court clarifies that allegations of fraud in the making of a contract do not render an arbitration clause unenforceable unless the agreement itself is proven forged or non-existent. This reinforces the separability doctrine, ensuring parties cannot evade arbitration by merely pleading fraud - critical for commercial parties relying on arbitration agreements in high-stakes share transactions.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that mere allegations of fraud in the making of a contract do not render an arbitration agreement unenforceable; Section 8 applications must be referred to arbitration unless the arbitration clause itself is proven void or non-existent. This clarifies that fraud challenges go to the merits of the dispute, not the validity of the arbitration mechanism, reinforcing pro-arbitration policy in commercial disputes.

MP High Court rules that when an arbitration agreement omits the seat or venue, territorial jurisdiction defaults to where the contract was executed and the dispute arose. This clarifies the fallback mechanism under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, impacting parties drafting arbitration clauses without explicit seat designation.

The High Court of J&K & Ladakh ruled that a mere general reference to a standard dealership agreement in a temporary appointment does not automatically incorporate its arbitration clause. The decision underscores the need for explicit inclusion of arbitration terms in contracts, impacting businesses relying on standard agreements for dispute resolution.

Sikkim High Court reaffirms that an arbitration clause remains enforceable despite contractual invalidity, upholding the separability principle. The court invalidated a contractual restriction on the tribunal's interim powers under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed a former Supreme Court judge as sole arbitrator, reinforcing the autonomy of arbitration agreements.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that when an insurer pays part of an insurance claim, it constitutes an admission of liability for the entire claim, and any dispute over the unpaid balance relates only to quantum-not arbitrability. This clarifies that policyholders can compel arbitration for residual amounts even when insurers attempt to sever liability from payment, reinforcing the enforceability of arbitration clauses in commercial insurance disputes.

Patna High Court holds that mere allegations of fraud or contract non-compliance do not invalidate an arbitration clause, empowering courts to appoint arbitrators under Section 11(6) if the designated authority fails to act. This ruling reinforces the primacy of arbitration agreements in commercial disputes, ensuring parties cannot evade arbitration through procedural objections.

Jharkhand High Court rules that disputes involving contractual dues with an arbitration clause must be resolved through arbitration, not writ petitions. The court dismissed a writ seeking refund of a security deposit, reinforcing that arbitration is the exclusive remedy for such claims under the contract.

Karnataka HC rules that an arbitration clause in a partnership deed only covers disputes arising after the deed’s effective date. Claims under a novated settlement deed lacking an arbitration clause fall outside the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, reinforcing the need for explicit dispute resolution terms in post-novation agreements.

Bombay High Court reiterates that contractual disputes with an arbitration clause must be resolved through arbitration, not writ jurisdiction, unless a clear public law violation is demonstrated. The ruling reinforces the limited scope of Article 226 in private contractual matters, impacting contractors and government entities bound by arbitration agreements.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that performance bank guarantees cannot be encashed unilaterally when contractual disputes exist and an arbitration clause is operative. The court directed the petitioner to initiate arbitration within 45 days while restraining the respondent from encashing the guarantee, reinforcing the primacy of arbitration agreements in commercial disputes.

MP High Court rules that invoking a performance bank guarantee without first exhausting contractual dispute resolution mechanisms violates agreement terms and natural justice. The ruling reinforces that parties must adhere to prescribed contractual remedies before resorting to bank guarantee encashment, impacting construction contracts and commercial agreements.