Topic
The Delhi High Court held that an arbitration clause letting one party curate the arbitrator panel breaches Section 18’s equal treatment mandate, appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11 and affecting contracts with similar party nominated panel clauses.
The Bombay High Court held that the clause 'Arbitration Subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction' in a purchase order constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7, even though it lacks mandatory referential language or procedural machinery. The court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), affirming that minimalist clauses can satisfy the statutory threshold for arbitration agreements in commercial contracts.
The Delhi High Court held that for Section 11(6) applications, the limitation period begins only upon formal rejection of a claim, not from preliminary correspondence. The court also ruled that the mandatory mediation period under the contract must be excluded from the limitation calculation, appointing a sole arbitrator in a duty-free shop licence dispute with AAI.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that when factual disputes exist over limitation periods in arbitration referrals, the issue must be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal, not the court during Section 11 appointment proceedings. This clarifies the limited scope of judicial review at the arbitrator appointment stage, reinforcing tribunal autonomy in contested factual matters.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a state electricity utility’s Managing Director cannot appoint an arbitrator under a contractual clause when the dispute involves the utility’s own contractual obligations, as this creates an inherent conflict of interest under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. This ruling reinforces the independence requirement for arbitrator appointments in public utility contracts and protects parties from biased appointment mechanisms.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an arbitration agreement, even without explicitly naming the seat, operates as a de facto designation of the forum court’s jurisdiction as the legal seat under Section 11. This clarifies a critical gap in arbitration practice, binding parties to litigate disputes in the named jurisdiction and limiting challenges to venue under Section 34.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that an arbitration agreement can be inferred under Section 7(4)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if parties exchange pleadings alleging its existence without denial. This holding lowers the threshold for establishing arbitration agreements, impacting contract disputes where explicit agreements are absent but conduct suggests mutual intent.