Digi - Legal Insights

Juridical seat of arbitration was at Goa, therefore, Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 11(6) of Act hence, impugned order passed by High Court is set aside.

Impugned order is modified to recognize the 3rd and 4th respondents as parties to the arbitration, even though they are not signatories to partnership deed, this finding is prima facie and does not influence adjudication of related issues, including limitation and estoppel, which remain for Arbitral Tribunal to consider.

Status of RBIPL, a wholly-owned subsidiary of RWCL, as non-signatory to arbitration agreement is disputed, necessitating its evaluation by arbitrator hence, Former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court appointed as Sole Arbitrator.

A reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if it makes clause a part of contract.

determination of whether a dispute falls within an excepted matters clause of a contract falls squarely within competence of Arbitral Tribunal.

Pending commencement and final adjudication of arbitral proceedings, Respondent is prohibited from conducting or implementing "Kidzee Program" of Petitioner, either personally or through any representatives.

Single Judge correctly analyzed case and upheld denial of Appellants request for five-year extension under contract, noting that although two short extensions were granted, they were under increased charges and did not establish right to further extensions.

Advocate of High court, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and differences arising between Applicant and Respondent under and in connection with Cold Storage Facility Service Agreement, including Amendment Agreements dated 20 April 2022 and 14 November 2022.

Moratorium under Section 96 of IBC does not halt Section 34 Petition, as it merely delays Developers entitlement to asset and continuation of Section 34 Petition is not prohibited by interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC.

Under Section 9 of Act Court had previously put interlocutory arrangements in place, but parties showed disregard for these orders and given the conduct of MRF and Uzer Makina, there is a risk to outcomes of arbitration, necessitating relief before a Section 48 Petition is filed.

Retired Judge of Bombay High Court is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes and differences between parties arising out of and in connection with Agreement.

Present case highlights a termination due to unpaid fees by Appellants, but considering protracted time since 2020 and uncertainties regarding fee determination, substitute arbitrators appointment is deemed appropriate for further review of claims.

Impugned judgment regarding Respondent No.1, who is recognized as party to MoS, set aside and his disputes with appellants are to be referred to arbitration, along with those already under jurisdiction of appointed Arbitrator concerning MoS and Share Purchase Agreements involving others.

Under Section 34 of Act Court is considering findings related to respondents use of a mobilization advance and despite an earlier order dated 01.11.2017, proceedings are linked to a Section 9 application hence, Appellant granted four weeks time to deposit amount of Rs. 3.5 crores with Registry of High Court of Delhi.

There is no existence of arbitration agreement and therefore, decision of High Court to appoint an arbitrator requires interference.

Arbitral Tribunal is not justified in awarding pre-award/pendente lite interest in favor of respondent-claimant, contrary to Clause 16(3) and Clause 64(5) of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and this award is liable to be set aside.

Denial of legal representatives right to challenge an award under Section 34 would undermine Arbitration Acts intent as comprehensive dispute resolution framework hence, impugned order of High Court is affirmed.

High Court wrongly declined prayer for arbitration hence, impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside and former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes between parties.

Award dated 21.10.2013 was found to be patently illegal, as it denied owners rightful compensation under both Clause 7 and Clause 13 of agreement.

Arbitration award is deemed unenforceable against Plaintiffs due to noncompliance with Section 21 of Act and contravenes proviso to Section 47 of Act.