Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

S. NAME OF CASE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES DESCRIPTION OF CASE

NO PROPOUNDED/CLARIFIED.
1. Ajay Madhusudan Patel Arraigning Non-Signatory to Background:
& Ors. Versus Jyotrindra Arbitration Proceedings- basis The case stemmed from a Family Arrangement Agreement (FAA) involving the petitioner, AMP Group, and
S. Patel & Ors., 2024 SCC their conduct (which signifies the respondent, JRS Group, with representatives from both groups belonging to the same family. The SRG
OnLine SC 2597 intend to bound). Group was also included as a respondent, having collaborated with AMP and JRS in two entities, Millenium
and Deegee. Under the terms of the FAA, the AMP Group was to exit Millenium and acquire shares in
Court: Supreme Court Deegee, while the JRS and SRG Groups were to exit Deegee, with the SRG Group acquiring shares in
Decision Date: Millenium. From 2013 to 2019, disputes arose between the AMP Group and the JRS and SRG Groups,
20/09/2024 resulting in multiple proceedings across various forums. After unsuccessful mediation efforts and a failure
to agree on the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator within 30 days, the AMP Group filed the present petition.

Decision of court:
The Court examined various judgments related to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act and determined that
the existence of an arbitration agreement was prima facie satisfied, as the respondent groups did not
dispute it. The main issue was whether the SRG Group could be included in the arbitration proceedings
despite not formally signing the agreement. The Court opined that non-signatories can be bound by the
agreement if their participation in the underlying contract indicates intent, and noted that the SRG Group's
involvement was crucial for a complete resolution of disputes under the Family Arrangement Agreement
(FAA). However, recognizing its limited jurisdiction under Section 11(6), the Court refrained from delving
into complex factual disputes and concluded that the arbitral tribunal should ultimately decide on the
SRG Group's status as a party to the arbitration agreement. The petition was allowed, and former Chief
Justice Akil Kureshi was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.

Precedents Relied
1. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1754, ¶¶
123-125, the Supreme Court addressed the judicial scrutiny involved in Section 11(6)
applications of the Arbitration Act, particularly regarding the defendant's plea of "accord and
satisfaction." The Court cautioned that if referral courts excessively engage with the merits of the
case at this preliminary stage, they risk leaving claimants without a forum for adjudication if their
applications are denied. It emphasized that a detailed inquiry at this stage could undermine the
goals of expediency and simplified pleadings. The Court concluded that even if the referral court
identifies apparent frivolity, the arbitral tribunal, equipped with comprehensive evidence, is better
positioned to make such determinations.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

2. Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited and Anr, (2024) 4 SCC 1, ¶¶ 163, 169 & 170,
specifically dealt with the scope of inquiry under Section 11 when it comes to impleading the non-
signatories in the arbitration proceedings. While saying that the referral court would be required
to prima facie rule on the existence of the arbitration agreement and whether the non-signatory
party is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement, it also said that in view of the complexity in
such a determination, the arbitral tribunal would be the proper forum. It was further stated that
the issue of determining parties to an arbitration agreement goes to the very root of the
jurisdictional competence of the arbitral tribunal and can be decided under its jurisdiction under
Section 16.

3. In Re:Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
Stamp Act, 1899 (2024) 6 SCC 1, ¶¶ 164-¶169, clarified the position taken in Vidya Drolia Case
to state that the scope of examination under Section 11(6) should be confined to the “existence
of the arbitration agreement” under Section 7 of the Act, 1996 and the “validity of an arbitration
agreement” must be restricted to the requirement of formal validity such as the requirement that
the agreement be in writing. Therefore, substantive objections pertaining to existence and validity
on the basis of evidence must be left to the arbitral tribunal since it can “rule” on its own
jurisdiction.

4. Vidya Drolia and Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation reported in (2021) 2 SCC 1, ¶¶ 153 & 239,
endorsed the prima facie test in examining the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement
both under Sections 8 and 11 respectively. However, it was clarified that in cases of debatable
and disputable facts and reasonably good arguable case, etc. the Court may refer the parties to
arbitration since the arbitral tribunal has the authority to decide disputes including the question
of jurisdiction. It was further stated that jurisdictional issues concerning whether certain parties
are bound by a particular arbitration under the group-company doctrine etc. in a multi-party
arbitration raise complicated questions of fact which are best left to the tribunal to decide.

5. Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729, ¶¶ 48 & 59, in clear terms,
clarified the effect of the change brought in by Section 11(6A) and stated that all that the Courts
need to see is whether an arbitration agreement exists - nothing more, nothing less.

6. SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618, expanded the scope of the Court’s power under
Section 11 while empowering the referral courts to decide several preliminary issues. Boghara
Polyfab (supra) went to the extent of identifying three categories of preliminary issues that may
arise for consideration in an application under Section 11. Of these, in the first category which

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

had to be mandatorily decided by the referral Court, the question whether there was an arbitration
agreement and whether the party who has applied under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is a party to
such an agreement, was also included.

2. R.P. Garg v. The Chief Determination of Post-Award Background:

General Manager, Interest as per S. 31(7)(b)- The case centers on a contractual dispute for trenching and laying underground cables, which required
Telecom Department & Not as per parties’ the appellant to provide a security deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs. After disputes arose over the non-payment of
Ors., Civil Appeal No. agreement. bills, the matter was referred to an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
10472 Of 2024 1996, leading to an award that allowed the appellant's claim but denied post-award interest, citing a
clause in the Arbitration Agreement that allegedly prohibited such interest. The appellant's subsequent
Court: Supreme Court request for post-award interest was dismissed by the Civil Judge, affirming the original award, but was
Decision Date: later granted by the District Judge at 18%. The Telecom Department challenged this ruling in the High
10/09/2024 Court, which ultimately set aside the District Court's order, referencing a contract clause stating that "no
interest will be payable on the earnest money or security deposit amount or any amount payable to the
contractor under the contract," and concluding that this constituted a prohibition on the grant of interest,
in line with Supreme Court precedents.

Decision of court:
The court found the High Court's judgment erroneous, asserting that the entitlement to post-award
interest is governed by Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which states that a sum
directed by an arbitral award shall carry interest from the date of the award until payment, irrespective of
any contractual prohibitions. The court clarified that while pre-award interest may be subject to party
agreement, post-award interest is not, emphasizing that the High Court mistakenly relied on a precedent
concerning pendente lite interest that was inapplicable here. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal,
restored the District Court's decision to grant post-award interest at 18% per annum, and set aside the
High Court's ruling.

Precedents Relied
1. Morgan Securities & Credits (P) Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 602, ¶¶ 24, 25,
wherein the court examined whether the phrase "unless the award otherwise directs" in Section
31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act limits the arbitrator's discretion solely to
determining the rate of post-award interest or also the sum to be paid. It clarified that while Clause
(a) is governed by the arbitration agreement, Clause (b) is determined by the arbitration award
itself. The wording indicates that Clause (b) only addresses the rate of post-award interest, not its
entitlement. The court emphasized that the arbitrator has significant discretion in setting pre-
award interest, and this discretion should not diminish when determining post-award interest.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

Therefore, if the arbitration award is silent on post-award interest, the award-holder is entitled to
a statutory rate of 18%.

3. OPG Power Generation Setting aside under S. 34 Background:

Pvt. Ltd. v. Enexio Power ACA, 1996, on ground of The case involves two appeals against a common judgment of the Madras High Court, which set aside a
Cooling Solutions India Public Policy. Single Judge's order and restored an arbitral award related to a contract between OPG Power Generation
Pvt Ltd. & Anr., Civil Private Ltd. (OPG) and Enexio Power Cooling Solutions (Enexio). OPG, a subsidiary of Gita Power, had
Appeal Nos. 3981-3982 issued separate purchase orders to Enexio for the design, supply, and commissioning of an air-cooled
of 2024 condenser unit for a thermal power plant in Tamil Nadu. These orders included an arbitration clause.
Disputes arose over payments, as Enexio claimed it was owed ₹6,75,15,631 after being paid
Court: Supreme Court ₹39,59,19,629 against a billed amount of ₹46,71,04,493. OPG countered with claims for deductions
Decision Date: worth ₹9,53,19,708 due to alleged liquidated damages, customs duty, and other costs. A meeting in April
10/09/2024 2018 indicated some acknowledgment of the outstanding amounts but no consensus on deductions.
OPG later offered ₹3 crore as a settlement, which Enexio rejected, leading to the arbitration process.

Decision of court:
The Supreme Court clarified the limited scope for judicial interference in arbitral awards under Section
34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly after the 2015 amendment. It emphasized that
mere violations of law are insufficient for annulment; instead, an award must contravene fundamental
aspects of public policy or justice. The Court stated that for an award to be deemed against public policy,
it must breach fundamental principles essential to the administration of justice. Additionally, it highlighted
that arbitral awards should provide intelligible and adequate reasons, as required by Section 31(3), and
affirmed that courts should respect an arbitrator's interpretation of contracts unless it is patently illegal.
The Court also outlined conditions under which implied terms can be read into contracts, stressing the
need for clear intent by the parties. Overall, the ruling reinforced the notion that courts do not sit as
appellate bodies over arbitral awards, limiting intervention to specified grounds.

Precedents Relied
1. Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd. (2024) 4 SCC 1, wherein a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court ruled that a Court or Arbitral Tribunal can determine whether a non-signatory is
bound by an arbitration agreement by interpreting the explicit language used in the agreement,
along with the context of its formation, execution, and termination. The Court affirmed that the
'Group of Companies' doctrine is based on identifying the intention of the non-signatory to be part
of the arbitration agreement. This intention can be inferred from various factors, including the

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

non-signatory's direct relationship with the signatory parties, the shared subject matter, the
composite nature of the transaction, and the performance of the contract.

2. Geo Miller & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, (2020) 14 SCC 643, ¶ 28,
wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in a commercial dispute, though mere failure
to pay may not give rise to a cause of action, once the applicant has asserted their claim and the
respondent fails to respond to such claim, such failure will be treated as a denial of the applicant’s
claim giving rise to a dispute and, therefore, a cause of action for reference to arbitration would
come into existence. It was also observed that it would not lie in the mouth of the claimant to
plead that it waited to refer the dispute to arbitration because it was making representations and
sending reminders to the respondent to settle the matter.

3. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Lt., (2019) 20 SCC 1, ¶¶ 27-43, wherein a
three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court emphasized that courts must recognize that arbitral
awards should not be interfered with lightly or casually. Interference is only warranted if the court
determines that the award’s perversity undermines the very essence of the matter and that no
reasonable alternative interpretation can uphold the award. The Court noted that the jurisdiction
exercised under Section 34 is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction; instead, it should prioritize
the finality of arbitral awards and respect the parties' autonomy to resolve their disputes through
the alternative mechanisms established by law.

4. Ssangyong Engineering v. National Highways Authority of India, AIR 2019 SC 5041, ¶¶ 34-35,
which dealt with post 2015 amendment scenario, it was observed that an argument to set aside
an award on the ground of being in conflict with ‘most basic notions of justice’, can be raised only
in very exceptional circumstances, that is, when the conscience of the court is shocked by
infraction of some fundamental principle of justice. Notably, in that case the majority award
created a new contract for the parties by applying a unilateral circular, and by substituting a
workable formula under the agreement by another, dehors the agreement. This, in the view of the
Court, breached the fundamental principles of justice, namely, that a unilateral addition or
alteration of a contract can never be foisted upon an unwilling party, nor can a party to the
agreement be liable to perform a bargain not entered with the other party46. However, a note of
caution was expressed in the judgment by observing that this ground is available only in very
exceptional circumstances and under no circumstance can any court interfere with an arbitral
award on the ground that justice has not been done in the opinion of the court because that would
be an entry into the merits of the dispute.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

4. Rohit Sood v. Gammon Application U/S 34 Of Background:

Engineers and Arbitration Act to Challenge The petitioner challenged the award issued under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act, despite the original
Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Arb Award Passed U/S 18(4) Of agreement designating exclusive jurisdiction to the Bombay High Court. After a dispute arose, the matter
Petition No.28089 OF MSMED Act was referred to a Facilitation Council in Shimla, which issued an award against the petitioner. The
2022. petitioner subsequently filed a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the
Bombay High Court, while the respondent contended that the challenge should occur in Shimla. This
Court: Bombay High situation led to a larger bench examining conflicting interpretations of jurisdiction regarding awards under
Court the MSMED Act.
Decision Date:
16/10/2024 Decision of court:
The Bombay High Court ruled that the jurisdiction to challenge an arbitration award under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is determined by the parties' agreement, which granted
exclusive jurisdiction to the Bombay High Court. The court asserted that despite the award being issued
under the MSMED Act and the proceedings occurring in Shimla, the original jurisdiction clause in the
arbitration agreement prevails. It found that the MSMED Act lacks a mechanism for challenging such
awards, thereby allowing the Arbitration Act to apply post-award. Consequently, the court affirmed its
authority to hear the challenge and referred the matter back to the appropriate court for further
proceedings.

Precedents Relied
1. Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Shahay Industries, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 750,
¶¶ 15-17, it was held that even if the award was passed at Madurai, the Bombay High Court will
have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the arbitral proceedings including an application under
section 34 of the arbitration act.

2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Fepl Engineering (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10265, it was
held that once a seat of arbitration is designated in the arbitration agreement, it will act as an
exclusive jurisdictional clause. The corresponding court will have exclusive jurisdiction to conduct
the proceedings. The court held that jurisdiction of the MSME Council which is decided on the
basis of the location of the supplier, would only determine the 'VENUE', and not the 'SEAT' of
arbitration. The 'SEAT' of arbitration would continue to be governed in terms of the arbitration
agreement between the parties

5. Tata Capital Limited Limited Scope of Examination Background:

Versus Priyanka by Referral Court U/S 11 of Tata Capital Limited filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to appoint
Communications (India) ACA, 1996. an arbitrator based on an arbitration clause in a Sanction Letter dated August 19, 2019. This request

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Comm. stemmed from a series of financial agreements with Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. and its
Arb. Application No.168 guarantors, beginning on May 17, 2017, concerning a Working Capital Demand Loan Facility (WCDL).
OF 2023 After multiple modifications to the loan agreements, a one-time ad-hoc loan of Rs. 5.6 crores was
sanctioned in 2019, which also included an arbitration clause. Following the respondent's failure to repay,
Court: Bombay High Tata Capital initiated recovery actions under the SARFAESI Act and filed a summary suit. When the
Court respondent refused to appoint an arbitrator after Tata invoked the arbitration clause on April 6, 2021,
Decision Date: Tata Capital sought the court's intervention.
15/10/2024
Decision of court:
The court ruled that the examination under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited
to confirming the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, as defined by Section 7. The court
emphasized that objections regarding the waiver of arbitration rights, based on prior proceedings under
the SARFAESI Act, cannot be addressed at this stage and should be considered by the arbitral tribunal
instead. It concluded that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties, thus allowing the
application and appointing an arbitrator to resolve the disputes.

Precedents Relied
1. Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
Stamp Act, 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1, ¶¶ 150 to 169, 219, 220 and 222, held that under Section
11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the examination is restricted to verifying the
existence of an arbitration agreement. This determination is limited to a prima facie assessment
of whether the contract includes an arbitration clause relevant to the disputes between the
parties. The court clarified that its role is confined to this initial examination, while more
comprehensive inquiries into substantive issues are to be handled by the arbitral tribunal,
ensuring minimal court interference and preserving the effectiveness of arbitration as a dispute
resolution mechanism.

2. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, (2024) SCC OnLine 1754, ¶¶ 110 to 114, 117,
118, 122 to 125, was referred to held that the scope of examination under Section 11(6-A) is
confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section 7. The examination
of validity of the arbitration agreement is also limited to the requirement of formal validity such as
the requirement that the agreement should be in writing.

6. Dhule Municipal Interpretation and Test- Seat, Background:

Commissioner v. M/s Venue and Place of
Borse Borthers arbitration.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

Engineers and The petitioner filed writ petition under Section 226 to contest an arbitrator's order that designated
Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Section 20(3)- discretion of Aurangabad as the venue, despite the agreement specifying Dhule. The petitioner argued that the
2024 SCC OnLine Bom arbitral tribunal to conduct arbitrator had no jurisdiction to alter the venue.
3330 hearings at any place of
convenience. Decision of court:
Court: Bombay High The Bombay High Court, upheld the arbitrator's authority to change the venue of arbitration to a more
Court convenient location, even when a specific venue is specified in the agreement. The court ruled that
Decision Date: Section 20(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act allows such changes if conducting proceedings at the
15/10/2024 agreed venue would hinder the arbitration process. It clarified that the seat of arbitration could differ from
the venue, and emphasized that the arbitrator acted within their rights to facilitate the efficient conduct
of arbitration. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the validity of the arbitrator's
decision.

Precedents Relied
1. Surendra Kumar Singhal & Ors vs. Arun Kumar Bhalotia & Ors, (2021) 279 DLT 636, wherein the
Delhi High Court established key principles for exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
concerning arbitral orders: petitions against arbitral tribunals are permissible; the non-obstante
clause in Section 5 of the Act does not apply to Article 227; judicial interference is limited to
exceptional circumstances; courts should only intervene if the arbitral order is perverse or lacks
inherent jurisdiction; excessive interference in the arbitral process is discouraged; and jurisdiction
under these articles should be exercised rarely or in cases of bad faith.

2. BBR (India) Private Limited vs. S. P. Singla Constructions Private Limited, AIR 2022 SC 2673, ¶
21, it was held that section 20(3) empowers the arbitral tribunal to conduct hearings at any place
of convenience unless the parties have agreed otherwise. This can be for consultation among its
members, recording witness statements, examination of experts or parties, and inspection of
documents, goods, or property. The court further observed that the 'seat of arbitration' may be
different from the place where contractual obligations are/were to be performed.

3. BGS SGS Soma JV vs. NHPC Limited, 2019 SCC Online SC 1585, ¶ 61, It was clarified that when
a venue is expressly designated without an alternative seat specified, and governed by
supranational rules, that venue serves as the juridical seat of arbitration. The Supreme Court
emphasized that parties can agree on any place as the seat of arbitration within India, and if no
agreement exists, Section 20(2) allows the tribunal to determine the seat. Additionally, Section
20(3) provides for selecting a convenient venue, which may sometimes coincide with the
designated seat in the arbitration agreement.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

7. Mriksha Corporation Pvt Grant of interim relief under Background:

Ltd v. Absolute Legends Section 9 of ACA, 1996 In a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act concerning a dispute in the “Legend
Sports Pvt Ltd & Anr., League Cricket,” the petitioner, franchise holder for the Konark Surya Orissa team, contested the rulings
O.M.P. (I) (COMM) of the Event Technical Committee (ETC) and the Apex Council, which allowed the alteration of a cricket
357/2024. match result after its official announcement. On September 20, 2024, the petitioner’s team was declared
the winner with a score of 104/9 against 102/8. Following the match, the opposing team claimed a
Court: Delhi High Court scoring error and requested a review. The ETC subsequently ruled the match a tie and shared the points,
Decision Date: despite acknowledging that this decision contravened league rules. Dissatisfied with the ETC's ruling and
9/10/2024 the Apex Council's endorsement of it, the petitioner sought interim relief from the High Court.

Decision of court:
The bench emphasized that Rule 16.9 of the Legend League Cricket Playing Conditions prohibits altering
the result of a match after it has been declared, highlighting the dynamic nature of live matches where
strategies must adapt in real-time based on the official scoreboard. The decision to retrospectively change
the match outcome under the pretext of correcting a scoring error contradicts the essence of the game.
Acknowledging that the communications from the ETC and the Apex Council were not aligned with the
established rules, the bench imposed a stay on these decisions and ordered a recalculation of the points
tally, ensuring future matches adhere to the corrected standings.

8. Ashok Kumar Goel & Anr. Emergency Arbitrator’s Background:

v. Ebix Cash Limited & decision is binding in nature The case involves a Shareholders Agreement (SHA) dated May 12, 2017, between the parties, under
Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine which the respondents agreed to purchase the petitioners' shares. Disputes arose after the petitioners
Bom 3233 terminated the SHA, leading to the formation of an Arbitral Tribunal under the Singapore International
Arbitration Chamber (SIAC) rules. On June 1, 2023, the Tribunal upheld the termination and ordered a
Court: Bombay High new valuation, which resulted in the petitioners being awarded Rs. 9 crores in costs on October 1, 2023.
Court Following this, an independent valuer, PwC, determined the enhanced call price at Rs. 181 crores on
Decision Date: January 2, 2024, but the respondents refused payment and disputed the valuer's independence. The
8/10/2024 Delhi High Court subsequently ordered a status quo on the respondents' assets, prompting the petitioners
to seek emergency interim relief under SIAC rules. The Emergency Arbitrator directed the respondents to
provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 145 crores, which the respondents failed to comply with, leading to the
petitioners filing for relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Decision of court:
The court granted the petitioners' request for interim relief, emphasizing that the Emergency Arbitrator's
decision, classified as an "order" under SIAC rules, did not resolve any substantive part of the dispute. It
found that Section 9 of the Arbitration Act applied since the Shareholders Agreement did not exclude Part

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

I of the Act, supporting the principle of party autonomy in arbitration. The court highlighted that the
Emergency Arbitrator's ruling was detailed and well-reasoned, and that the respondents had not
contested its validity. Given the respondents' obstructionist behavior, which aimed to delay enforcement,
the court concluded that the petitioners were entitled to relief, affirming the binding nature of the
Emergency Arbitrator's decision and the respondents' obligation to comply without delay.

Precedents Relied
1. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC Vs. Future Retail Limited and Ors. (2022) 1 SCC 209,
the Supreme Court held that once a party agrees to institutional rules and participates in an
emergency arbitration proceeding, it cannot later claim that the decision of the Emergency
Arbitrator is not binding or invalid.

2. Ultra Deep Subsea Pte Ltd. Vs Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom
5481, where it was expressly held in the context of exclusion of section 9 to foreign seated
arbitrations, that, “there must be a specific Agreement between the parties which would indicate
a clear intention to oust the jurisdiction of Court to grant relief under section 9 of the Indian
Arbitration Act”.

3. Essar House Private Limited Vs. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1219,
wherein the court held that in exercise of the powers to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the
Arbitration Act, a Court was not strictly bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908.

4. Ashwani Minda and Anr. vs. U Shin Limited & Anr, 2020 SCC Online Del 1648, wherein the Delhi
High Court ruled that the Section 9 petition was not maintainable because the parties had
excluded the provisions of Part I of the Act, including Section 9. Additionally, the court noted that
having deliberately chosen to approach the Emergency Arbitrator, the petitioner could not
subsequently seek recourse under Section 9 simply due to an unfavorable outcome with the
Emergency Arbitrator. It emphasized that a court reviewing a Section 9 petition cannot act as an
appellate body to scrutinize the Emergency Arbitrator's order.

5. BGS SGS Soma Vs. NHPC Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 234, the court provided for test for identification
of seat, and furthered that once parties had consciously agreed that the juridical seat of the
arbitration, then it was no longer open to them to contend that the provisions of Part I of the
Arbitration Act would be applicable sans explicit choice to make Part I applicable.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

6. Imax Corporation V/s E-City Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd, (2017) 5 SCC 331 (Distinguised by
court) – In this case, apex court has affirmed that the choice of a foreign seat by an arbitral
institution serves as an exclusion of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under the
pre-BALCO regime. During this period, parties needed to explicitly or implicitly exclude the
application of Part I in their arbitration agreements to negate the jurisdiction of Indian courts. It
further provided that the absence of such explicit exclusion, various other factors were taken into
account by the courts to assess whether exclusion was valid.

9. Dalmia Family Office Arbitral Tribunals have the Background:

Trust & Anr. vs. Getamber same power as a Civil Court in The contempt petition arose from an order issued by Sole Arbitrator Justice Swatanter Kumar (Retd.)
Anand & Ors. CONT.CAS. dealing with contempt against during arbitration between Dalmia Group and ATS Group concerning unpaid investments. ATS admitted
(CRL) 5/2021. itself as per sections 17(2) its liabilities in a supplementary agreement but later alleged a conflict of interest against the Arbitrator,
and 27(5) of the ACA, 1996. which was rejected as frivolous. The Arbitrator initiated contempt proceedings against ATS for making
Court: Delhi High Court false statements and document tampering.
Decision Date:
8/10/2024 Decision of court:
The Delhi High Court held that Arbitral Tribunals have the same authority as Civil Courts in addressing
contempt proceedings under Sections 17(2) and 27(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The
court emphasized that baseless allegations against arbitrators undermine the integrity of arbitration and
must be addressed strictly. In this case, the ATS Group was found to have acted reprehensibly by making
false statements to challenge the Arbitrator's impartiality. The court affirmed the tribunal's power to
initiate contempt proceedings and imposed a penalty on Respondent No. 1, requiring a payment of ₹10
lakh to charity and ₹3 lakh in costs to the Petitioners.

Precedents Relied
1. Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan, (2017) 16 SCC 119, ¶¶ 6-8, held that the purpose of
amending section 17 was to make sure that orders passed by arbitral tribunals were not toothless
and could be enforced. The Supreme Court had observed that section 27(5) is not confined to a
person who is guilty of contempt only when failing to attend in accordance with such process. The
section clearly states that persons guilty of any contempt to the Arbitral Tribunal during the
conduct of the arbitral proceedings are within its ken.

10. Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Principle Of Judicial Non- Background:

Rajender and Others., Interference – applies equally The Delhi High Court, considered a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for
Arb.P. 1261/2024 to Both Domestic & the appointment of a sole arbitrator in a dispute arising from a sale agreement executed on November

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

International Arbitral 24, 2005, between the parties. The petitioner claimed the agreement transferred ownership of a plot in
Court: Delhi High Court Proceedings Khera Kalan, Delhi, along with related documents. Initially allotted to the respondents on May 6, 2005,
Decision Date: the plot was sold to the petitioner, but the original allotment was withdrawn on December 10, 2007,
7/10/2024 leading to a reallocation. On August 10, 2020, the petitioner discovered that an unidentified individual
was in possession of the plot, prompting a legal notice on August 27, 2020, demanding compensation
for the loss. The respondents denied the existence of any agreement, resulting in the petitioner seeking
arbitration to resolve the matter.

Decision of court:
The Delhi High Court concluded that a prima facie arbitration agreement existed between the parties,
affirming that its role was limited to determining the existence of such an agreement. Placing reliance on
the Supreme Court's judgment in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, the court emphasized
the principle of judicial non-interference in arbitral proceedings and stated that questions regarding
limitation and non-arbitrability should be addressed by the arbitrator, who has the authority to adjudicate
these issues. The court appointed Mr. Shobhit Chaudhary as the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes
under the auspices of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), with fees as per the DIAC's
schedule. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, directing those questions of limitation and arbitrability
be raised before the arbitrator rather than the court.

Precedents Relied
1. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine 1754, ¶¶ 92, 93,
(distinguished vidya Drolia); ¶¶ 114, 117, 118, & 122 (scope of judicial interference), herein the
court clarified that the inquiry during the appointment of an arbitrator is limited to verifying the
prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, rejecting the broader interpretations of
jurisdiction previously considered under Section 11, such as "accord and satisfaction." It
emphasized that merely appointing an arbitrator does not compromise the principle of arbitral
autonomy, allowing issues related to "accord and satisfaction" to be raised within the arbitration
process itself. The court noted that while past rulings allowed for limited judicial interference in
cases of apparent non-arbitrability, the current legal framework—specifically following the
amendments to the Arbitration Act—restricts the referral court's role to confirming the existence
of an arbitration agreement, thereby reinforcing the intent of minimal judicial involvement in
arbitration.

2. Pure Diets India Limited vs. Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4486, the court
relied on Vidya Drolia to hold that dispute involving third party rights are not amenable to
arbitration.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

3. Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading, (2021) 2 SCC 1, ¶ 76, wherein the apex court proposed a fourfold
test to determine when the subject matter of a dispute in an arbitration agreement is non-
arbitrable: (1) disputes related to actions in rem that do not pertain to subordinate rights in
personam; (2) disputes affecting third-party rights, requiring centralized adjudication; (3) disputes
involving inalienable sovereign functions of the State; and (4) disputes that are expressly or
implicitly deemed non-arbitrable by mandatory statutes. These criteria are not rigid but overlap
and should be applied holistically to ascertain arbitrability in Indian law. Care must be taken in
their application, as illustrated by past cases where certain disputes, like those involving public
criminal offenses or status matters, may be non-arbitrable, although some related claims for
damages can be arbitrated.

11. ICRI Corporates Pvt. Ltd. Separate Fee Calculation for Background:
v. Shooglo Network Pvt. Claims & Counterclaims The petitioner, Shooglo Network Private Limited, initiated arbitration seeking recovery of ₹44,69,864 with
Ltd., O.M.P.(MISC.) under Schedule IV of the ACA, a 24% interest rate. The respondent counterclaimed ₹2 crores. On August 12, 2024, the arbitrator set
(COMM.) 788/2024 1996 the total fees at ₹6,02,747, requiring both parties to pay 50% each. The respondent referenced the
Supreme Court's ruling in ONGC Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2024 4 SCC 481 (“ONGC case”), which
Court: Delhi High Court Apportionment of fees: mandates separate fee calculations for claims and counterclaims under the IVth Schedule of the
Decision Date: Sections 31 A, 38 and 39(2) Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The petitioner contested this under Section 39(2) of the ACA, 1996,
7/10/2024 of the ACA, 1996 – which arguing that the fees had already been mutually agreed upon and could not be revised by the tribunal.
provides for regime of costs,
deposits and Lien on arbitral Decision of court:
award and deposits as to The court dismissed the petition, ruling that invoking Section 39(2) was premature as no award had been
costs. issued. It upheld the arbitral tribunal's recalculation of fees, affirming that the tribunal acted within its
rights and correctly applied the IVth Schedule, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in ONGC Case.
The court noted that the initial fee determination was based on the IVth Schedule rather than solely on
mutual agreement, validating the tribunal's actions as compliant with legal standards.

Precedents Relied (¶ 12-27):

1. Ahluwalia Contracts India Limited v. Union of India through Executive Engineer, CPWD & Anr.2024
SCC OnLine Del 5080, ¶ 7, wherein the ONGC Case was cited (¶ 187)
and held that Arbitrator has to calculate his fees separately for claims and counter claims in ad
hoc arbitration and the ceiling limit in the fourth schedule shall also be separately applicable.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

12. Lava International Ltd. Vs Adjudicating Arbitral Background:

Mintellectuals LLP Arb. A. Tribunals' Orders U/S 17 Of The arbitration proceedings stemmed from a Research and Collaboration Agreement dated July 1, 2017,
(Comm.) 48/2024 & I.As. ACA, 1996 - Court Not Strictly which required the appellant to make quarterly royalty payments for sales of 'Covered Devices.' After an
39812-39814/ 2024. Bound by O.38 & O.39 CPC earlier arbitration ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 47.18 crores, the respondent sought security for royalty
payments via a Section 9 petition, which was treated as a Section 17 application and resolved through a
Court: Delhi High Court consent order in March 2020. Following this, another Section 17 application was filed for security covering
Decision Date: the 9th to 11th quarters, leading to a tribunal order in January 2021 that required the appellant to provide
4/10/2024 security but rejected the respondent's request for an increased amount. The appellant subsequently
appealed two tribunal orders—one requiring Rs. 62.154 crores in security for the 12th to 20th quarters
and another rejecting the appellant's proposed cheque and corporate guarantee, instead mandating a
bank guarantee within 15 days.

Decision of court:
The Delhi High Court ruled that its interference with interim orders under Section 17 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act is limited to instances where the orders are "perverse" or "manifestly arbitrary." The court
emphasized that the arbitral tribunal's authority to direct security is valid unless it violates the law. It
clarified that while the principles of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are not strictly binding, they serve as
valuable guidance, and that a strong prima facie case is sufficient for interim relief under Section 9 of the
Arbitration Act. The court upheld the tribunal’s decision to require Rs. 62.145 crores as security, viewing
it as an interim measure rather than a final determination of liability, and found no fault in rejecting a
cheque and corporate guarantee as adequate security. It also dismissed the appellant's claim that the
orders lacked reasoning, affirming that the tribunal's findings were sufficient. Consequently, the court
dismissed the appeal.

Precedents Relied
1. OPG Power Generation Private Limited v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited &
Anr Civil Appeals no. 3981-3982 of 2024, ¶¶ 71.2, 71.3 & 71.6, it was stated that if the reasons
are clear and sufficient upon a fair reading of the award, and are, in relevant cases, implied in the
referenced documents, the award should not be annulled due to inadequacy of reasons.

2. Skypower Solar India (P) Ltd. v. Sterling and Wilson International FZE, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7240,
¶¶ 65 & 69, the court noted that while it is not strictly bound by the principles outlined in Order
39 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC, it is still guided by these principles when
determining suitable interim protective measures. The court further stated that in exercising its
powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, it is “not unduly bound by their texts.”

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

3. Essar House (P) Ltd. v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1219, ¶¶ 49-
50, where the court emphasised that if a strong prima facie case is established and the balance
of convenience favours granting interim relief, the Court exercising power under Section 9 of the
Arbitration Act should not deny relief simply due to a technicality regarding the lack of averments
that would typically be required for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the
CPC. It is not necessary to prove actual attempts to deal with, remove, or dispose of property in
order to obstruct or delay the realization of an impending arbitral award; rather, a strong likelihood
of asset depletion is sufficient.

4. Sanjay Arora v. Rajan Chadha, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4619, ¶¶ 19-20, wherein court observed
that “It is only where the order suffers from patent illegality or perversity that the court would
interfere under Section 37(2)(b).”

5. Dinesh Gupta v. Anand Gupta 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2099, ¶¶ 60, 64 & 66, which stated that the
arbitrator's authority to mandate the provision of security is not in dispute under sub-clause (b) of
Section 17(1)(ii) of the 1996 Act. The arbitrator's decision to secure the disputed amount falls
within his jurisdiction, and judicial interference is restricted to situations where the arbitrator's
decision is deemed to violate the law or is manifestly arbitrary.

13. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Maintainability of petition Background:

Parishad & Ors v. under Art. 227 against arbitral The petition under Art 227 in present case, arises from a dispute between U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
Universal Contractors award (“petitioner”) and Universal Contractors and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (“respondent”) regarding arbitration
and Engineers Ltd., proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following a series of orders by the arbitral
2024: AHC-LKO:68529. tribunal, two key decisions were made on August 29, 2024, and September 21, 2024. The tribunal first
allowed the respondent access to a complete copy of the contract and final bill and subsequently
Court: Allahabad High permitted the respondent to change its name from a private limited company to a public limited company.
Court In response, the petitioner sought to have these orders recalled, but the tribunal rejected this request,
Decision Date: leading to the current challenge under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.
3/10/2024
Decision of court:
The court dismissed the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order
of the arbitral tribunal that required the petitioner to provide a complete copy of the contract and
permitted the respondent to change its name. Citing the Supreme Court's rulings in SBP & Company v.
Patel Engineering Ltd. and Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, the court
emphasized that orders of an arbitral tribunal are not subject to correction under Articles 226 or 227
unless they are expressly appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

court concluded that since the Arbitration Act provides adequate mechanisms for challenging tribunal
orders, intervention under constitutional provisions was unwarranted, thereby upholding the principle of
limited judicial interference in arbitral matters.

Precedents Relied
1. Deep Industries Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and another, (2020) 15 SCC
706, ¶¶ 16, 17, 23 & 24, wherein it was provided that allowing petitions under Articles 226 and
227 against orders from appeals under Section 37 could severely disrupt the arbitral process.
While Article 227 remains a constitutional provision, the court emphasized the need for restraint
in judicial interference, particularly when the Arbitration Act provides specific mechanisms for
challenging tribunal orders, such as Sections 34 and 37. Consequently, the court concluded that
the petition under Article 227 challenging the tribunal's orders requiring the petitioner to provide
a copy of the contract and allowing a name change could not be entertained, as effective remedies
are already available within the framework of the Arbitration Act.

2. SBP & Company Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another, (2005) 8 SCC 618, ¶¶ 45, 46, in which
it was held that orders passed by an arbitral tribunal are not amenable to correction under article
226/227 of the constitution unless they are appealable under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

14. M/s Agarwal Associates Article 227 doesn't apply to Background:

(Promoters) Limited v. tribunal-allowed The case involves two agreements with identical terms, one for plot No. 129 and the other for plot No.
M/s Sharda Developers interrogatories and 130, related to a township development project in Uttar Pradesh. The seller, registered as a "Private
CM(M) 3265/2024 & discoveries that aren't fishing Developer" by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA), claimed ownership of most of the land for the
CM(M) 3266/2024. inquiries. project "ADITYA WORLD CITY." The buyer invoked arbitration, alleging a breach of the agreements and
sought either the execution of a transfer deed for the plots or possession of an alternative plot, along with
Court: Delhi High Court compensation. During the proceedings, the buyer filed applications for interrogatories and discovery
Decision Date: regarding alternate plots, which the tribunal allowed. The seller subsequently sought to set aside this
3/10/2024 order under Article 227, arguing that the requests were improper.

Decision of court:
The Delhi High Court upheld the tribunal's decision to allow the buyer's requests for interrogatories and
document production regarding alternative plots within the development project. The court noted that the
seller had previously communicated the non-availability of specific plots due to pending land acquisition
but then offered similar plots, thereby justifying the buyer's inquiry about these alternatives. The bench
emphasized that seeking information does not equate to claiming rights or titles over other plots and that
the requested information was relevant to the dispute, aiding the arbitration process. The court further

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

stated that the scope for review under Article 227 is limited and that there was no justification for
intervening in the tribunal's decision, affirming that the applications for interrogatories and discovery were
appropriate given the context.

Precedents Relied
1. Puri Investments Versus Young Friends and Co. and Others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283, the scope
of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in context of orders passed
in arbitral proceedings, is very compressed and restricted. The court should not interject unless,
there is palpable element of „exceptional rarity‟ or „exceptional circumstance‟ or „extreme
perversity‟ or if there is hint of any „bad faith‟

2. IDFC First Bank Limited v. Hitachi MGRM Net Limited: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4052, furthered the
limited Judicial intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding orders in
arbitral proceedings.

15. Corrtech International Issue as to if any Objection Background:

Pvt Ltd v. Delhi Regarding Non-Applicability of The Delhi High Court, examined an appeal regarding a GAIL tender for Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)
International Arbitration MSMED Act Can Be Decided works. The appellant was awarded the contract and subcontracted it to Harji Engineering Pvt Ltd (HEWPL)
Center and Ors. CM. by Arbitral Tribunal U/S 16 Of for pipe installation related to the RLNG Gas Pipeline Project. Disputes over payments led Respondent
APPL. Nos. 57502- A&C, 1996 No. 3 to seek resolution through the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (MSFEC), but
04/2024 conciliation efforts failed. Consequently, arbitration proceedings were initiated at the Delhi International
Arbitration Center (DIAC) under the MSMED Act. The DIAC required the parties to submit their Statements
Court: Delhi High Court of Claim, warning of potential closure for non-compliance. The appeal, filed under Clause X of the Letters
Decision Date: Patent Act, challenged the single judge's dismissal of the writ petition as non-maintainable, focusing on
30/09/2024 whether the entity qualified as an MSME under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Decision of court:
The court upheld that referrals to arbitration under the MSMED Act are effective only from the date an
entity is registered as an MSME, emphasizing that several factual disputes existed regarding payment
settlements and the jurisdiction of the Delhi International Arbitration Center (DIAC). It clarified that such
matters are fact-dependent and not suitable for assessment under Article 226, aligning with the Supreme
Court's view that judicial intervention in arbitration is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, which
were not present here. The bench noted that the arbitral tribunal has the authority to address jurisdictional
issues under Section 16 before any court review under Section 34, ensuring that the appellant has
adequate remedies within the statutory framework. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming
the single judge's direction for all objections to be raised before the tribunal.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

Precedents Relied
1. Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 6 SCC 401, ¶¶
51, 52, provided that, it is undisputed that a reference to arbitration can only take effect from the
date the party is registered as an MSME with the Competent Authority under the MSMED Act. The
Supreme Court has also indicated that this applies solely to the supply of goods and services
provided after such registration.

2. Bhaven Constructions v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. & Anr. (2022)
1 SCC 75, ¶ 18, has categorically held that interference in arbitral proceedings in exercise of
jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, can be permissible only and only
in ‘exceptional circumstances.

16. Jayashree Electromech Compliance with Pre- Background:

Pvt. Ltd v. The West Arbitration Formalities not The Calcutta High Court addressed the case of Jayashree Electromech Private Limited against the West
Bengal State Electricity Mandatory and that can be Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, stemming from six contracts awarded between
Transmission Co. Ltd. AP- Waived by Consensus May 2016 and April 2018 for constructing electrical transformers. After the implementation of GST, the
COM No. 751 of 2024. petitioner sought an increase in the contract amount and a waiver of liquidated damages, both of which
were denied by the respondent. In February 2023, the petitioner unilaterally appointed an Adjudicator,
Court: Calcutta High who issued an award in March 2023. The respondent challenged this award under Section 34 of the
Court Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but the court ruled that the challenge was misplaced since the order was
Decision Date: issued by an Adjudicator, not an Arbitrator. Following this, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in
23/9/2024 May 2024, but the respondent insisted on adhering to pre-arbitration formalities, leading to the High
Court's ruling that such compliance could be waived by mutual agreement.

Decision of court:
The court ruled that the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not
premature, despite the petitioner’s non-compliance with pre-arbitral formalities, as these could be waived
by mutual consent. The court emphasized that enforcing such formalities would serve no practical
purpose, given the respondent's persistent resistance to resolving the dispute. Citing previous case law,
the court determined that multiple failed attempts at resolution rendered it unnecessary to revert to pre-
arbitration procedures. It concluded that the notice issued under Section 11 adequately outlined the
nature of the disputes, allowing for the appointment of an Arbitrator, which led to the application being
granted.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

Precedents Relied
1. Backend Bangalore Private Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1044, which held that since the respondent
had failed to refer the dispute to an Adjudicator, an Arbitrator could be appointed even if there
was no prior reference to the Adjudicator

2. Demerara Distilleries Private Limited and another v. Demerara Distillers Ltd, (2015) 13 SCC 610,
the court observed that since multiple correspondences yielded no result, it would be an “empty
formality'' to relegate the parties back to the rigmarole of pre-arbitration formalities
17. Michael Builders & Doctrine of forum conveniens Background:
Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The case involves a dispute between the parties regarding a construction agreement for a medical college
National Medical in Tamil Nadu. After completing the project for ₹52.13 crores, the petitioner sought an additional ₹20
Commission & Ors. crores due to non-payment. Following arbitration proceedings, a consent award was issued, but the Trust
W.P.(C) 12049/2024 & failed to pay the agreed amount. Although the District Court ordered property attachment due to
Cm Appl. 52550/2024 outstanding payments, the Trust secured an Essentiality Certificate to start a nursing and medical college
on the disputed property. In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which
Court: Delhi High Court ruled against forum shopping as an abuse of the legal process.
Decision Date:
18/9/2024 Decision of court:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions filed by Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., ruling that
the appropriate jurisdiction lay in Tamil Nadu, where the primary dispute and relevant orders originated.
The court emphasized that both parties resided in Tamil Nadu and had already engaged with the district
court in Nagercoil and the Madras High Court. Citing the doctrine of forum conveniens, the court rejected
the petitioner's argument that the presence of the National Medical Commission's head office in Delhi
conferred jurisdiction. It found the petitioner's actions constituted forum shopping, as they had withdrawn
cases from Tamil Nadu only to refile similar petitions in Delhi, which the court deemed an abuse of legal
process. Thus, the court affirmed that the matter should be adjudicated in Tamil Nadu.

Precedents_Relied:
1. Vemparala Srikant v. General Secretary, India Bulls Centrum Flat Owners Welfare Co-Operative Society,
Hyderabad, LPA No. 744/2024, wherein it held that when the foundational facts giving rise to the cause
of action arose within Telangana, it would be absurd to allow the petitions against orders of NCDRC to be
filed only in Delhi High Court, which would mean that a consumer who is agitating for his rights in far of
places like Assam, Manipur, etc. would have to travel to Delhi for redressal, which cannot be allowed in
view of the doctrine of forum conveniens.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

2. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254, ¶ 30, the Supreme Court noted that
even if a minor part of the cause of action arises within a High Court's jurisdiction, it does not automatically
compel that court to hear the case. The court may choose to decline its jurisdiction in favor of another
forum, invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. This principle underscores that jurisdiction should be
determined by the overall context of the dispute, rather than solely by minor jurisdictional ties.

18. Yves Saint Laurent v. Termination of mandate of Background:

Brompton Lifestyle arbitrator under Section 14 The Delhi High Court addressed a petition regarding the jurisdiction of an arbitration tribunal involving
Brands Private Limited & r/w Section 12(5) ACA, 1996 Yves Saint Laurent (YSL) and Beverly Luxury Brands Ltd (Beverly). YSL had a Franchise Agreement (FA)
Anr. O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) with Beverly that granted exclusive jurisdiction to Paris's commercial courts. However, Beverly entered
29/2023 into a Sub-Franchise Agreement (SFA) with Brompton Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd (Brompton) without YSL's
consent, and YSL was not a party to the SFA. After YSL terminated the FA on August 8, 2021, Brompton
Court: Delhi High Court invoked arbitration under the SFA on February 22, 2022. YSL claimed ignorance of the SFA until receiving
Decision Date: a Section 21 notice, arguing it was wrongly included in the proceedings. After YSL's Section 16 application
18/9/2024 challenging the arbitrator's authority was dismissed, it filed a petition under Section 14, along with Section
12(5) of the Arbitration Act, seeking to terminate the arbitrator's mandate.

Decision of court (¶ 43 of case- on maintainability):

The court ruled that the Arbitration Act does not restrict a party's right to seek the termination of an
arbitrator's mandate under Section 14 simply because it previously filed and lost a Section 16 application
challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction. The court clarified that reliance on a specific paragraph (¶ 7) from
SBP & Co v. Patel Engineering Ltd, (2005) 8 SCC 618, was misplaced; the Supreme Court indicated that
if a Section 16 application is dismissed, the party cannot challenge that dismissal until a final award is
made. Conversely, if the application is accepted, the opposing party has the right to appeal under Section
37(2)(a). Ultimately, the Supreme Court's ruling does not limit a party's ability to seek termination of the
tribunal's mandate under Section 14.

19. Swaranjit Singh Narula Section 29A, ACA, 1996 - Background:

Security Agency V. NTPC extension of the mandate of The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for
Ltd, O.M.P.(Misc.) arbitrator. extension of the mandate of an arbitrator appointed following a court order dated 09.11.2022. Both
(Comm.) 722/ 2024. parties have concluded their arguments, and the award was also reserved. Furthermore, the respondent
objected on the grounds that the petition was filed after the mandate of the arbitrator expired on
Court: Delhi High Court 03.09.2024
Decision Date:
12/09/2024 Decision of court:

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
 Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

The court ruled that a petition filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is
maintainable even after the expiration of the arbitrator's mandate, referencing precedents from ATC
Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. BSNL and Wadia Techno-Engineering Services Ltd. v. Director General
of Married Accommodation Project. It acknowledged that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court
due to conflicting decisions among various High Courts, but noted that the Delhi High Court's position
remains unchallenged. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the mandate of the arbitrator was
extended, as the respondent did not raise any other objections.

Precedents Relied
1. ATC Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. BSNL, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7135, held that a petition filed
under Section 29A of the Act is maintainable even if it is filed after the expiry of the arbitrator's
mandate.

2. Wadia Techno-Engineering Services Ltd. v. Director General of Married Accommodation Project,

2023 SCC OnLine Del 2990, held that a petition filed under Section 29A of the Act is maintainable
even if it is filed after the expiry of the arbitrator's mandate.

20. Naresh Kumar Sharma v. Scope of interference under Background:

Innovation Impex Pvt Ltd. Section 34 of ACA, 1996. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between Naresh Kumar Sharma (Petitioner) and
OMP (COMM) 61/19 Innovation Impex Pvt Ltd (Respondent) for the sale of property worth Rs. 490 crores, with an initial
Court: Delhi Commercial payment of Rs. 1 crore. The MOU required a payment of Rs. 125 crores before the respondent could
Court inspect the property. The respondent failed to make the payment, leading to a breakdown in
Decision Date: communication. Eventually, the respondent sought a refund of the initial payment and initiated
09/10/2024 arbitration.

Decision of court:
The ruling by the Commercial Court in New Delhi emphasizes the limited scope of judicial interference
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court clarified that it cannot substitute its
views for those of the arbitral tribunal unless the tribunal's decision conflicts with established legal
principles. This reinforces the principle that arbitration is intended to provide a final resolution to disputes
without the courts revisiting the merits of the case.

In this instance, the arbitrator's award was deemed well-reasoned and based on a thorough analysis of
the parties' arguments. The court reiterated that its role is not to act as an appellate body but to ensure
that the award does not violate public policy or procedural fairness.

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal
Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal

Precedents Relied (See ¶ 18-20):

1. Sutlej Construction Ltd. v. State (UT of Chandigarh), (2018) 1 SCC 718, ¶ 10-13, wherein the
scope of interference under section 34 was discussed. It was held that when it comes to setting
aside of an award under the public policy ground, it would mean that the award should shock the
conscience of the Court and would not include what the Court thinks is unjust on the facts of the
case seeking to substitute its view for that of the arbitrator to do what it considers to be “justice”.

2. MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. reported in (2019) 4 SCC 163, ¶ 11-14, wherein it was held that as
far as Section 34 is concerned, the position is well-settled by now that the Court does not sit in
appeal over the arbitral award and may interfere on merits on the limited ground provided under
Section 34(2)(b)(ii) i.e. if the award is against the public policy of India.

3. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Datar C.C.L. Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 133,
wherein it has been held that “the proposition of law that the Arbitral Tribunal is the master of
evidence and the findings of fact which are arrived at by the arbitrators on the basis of evidence
on record are not to be scrutinised as if the Court was sitting in appeal now stands settled by
catena of judgments pronounced by this Court without any exception thereto.”

Arbitration Law Updates, Part I (September, 2024 – October, 2024) – By Durgeshwari Paliwal