#arbitration law

The Madras HC ruled that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot challenge an MSMED Council award under Section 18 after a failed Section 34 petition, as Section 37 appeal is the exclusive remedy. The court barred the party from approbating and reprobating on the award's nature.

The Delhi High Court held that Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction survives the Section 37(3) bar on second appeals to review a Section 37(2)(b) appellate order, but dismissed the petition on merits. The court upheld the appellate court's modification of the arbitrator's Section 17 interim direction limiting document production to the pre-arbitration period, finding no perversity warranting interference.

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 Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award granting 9% interest on a Performance Bank Guarantee from the date of invocation violated public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) where the contract expressly excluded interest under Clause 13(2). The court set aside this portion of the award while upholding the rejection of the delayed shipment claim. The ruling reinforces that arbitrators cannot rewrite contractual terms on interest, and such overreach renders an award contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law.

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.

Bombay HC Division Bench grants Section 9 injunction to doctor-investors, barring land alienation to protect specific performance claim after 21-year developer default on delivery and IOD, reversing Single Judge's denial. The decision underscores Section 9's role in preventing arbitration frustration where prolonged inaction threatens the subject matter.

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.