#Section 37 Arbitration Act

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.

Allahabad HC rules that contractual tax liability under public works contracts is arbitrable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court distinguishes contractual tax obligations from statutory tax assessments, affirming that arbitral awards on such disputes are final and not subject to statutory reassessment. This impacts contractors and government departments navigating GST-related contractual disputes.

Bombay High Court reaffirms that commercial disputes involving fraud and third-party rights are arbitrable unless they satisfy the strict non-arbitrability thresholds established in A. Ayyasamy and Vidya Drolia. The Court set aside the arbitrator’s order, restoring arbitration proceedings and reinforcing the pro-arbitration stance under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

Bombay High Court rules that claimants can withdraw deposited arbitration award amounts under Section 34 challenges, subject to an undertaking to refund if the Supreme Court reverses the order. The ruling clarifies that mere pendency of an appeal does not bar withdrawal, ensuring liquidity for claimants during prolonged disputes.

Calcutta High Court rules that a Minimum Guaranteed Offtake (MGO) clause in a gas supply contract is enforceable without requiring proof of actual loss, reinforcing contractual liability for infrastructure cost recovery. The decision underscores that profitability concerns do not override agreed contractual obligations under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Delhi High Court reinforces that commission claims under representative agreements must demonstrate a direct, project-specific causative link-not just brand presence or general market facilitation. Arbitrators' factual findings on evidence are final unless perverse, and pre-institution interest remains discretionary under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act.