Supreme Court directs High Courts to decide all applications for appointment of arbitrator(s) at the earliest.
11. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. The Engineer in Chief, Military Engineering Service
The Supreme Court requested all the High Courts to decide and dispose of applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act which are pending for more than one year from the date of filing, within six months.
Whether a party forfeits the right to appoint an arbitrator after a Section 11 application is filed?
12. Durga Welding Works v. Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification
The Supreme Court held that the settled position of law is that a party forfeits its right to appoint an arbitrator as per the clause if it does not make an appointment before the filing of an application under Section 11(6).
Whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause would override the arbitration clause?
13. Hunch Circle Private Ltd v. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt Ltd
The High Court of Delhi held that the exclusive jurisdiction clause would override the seat specified in the arbitration agreement. The Court observed that generally, the seat clause would mean that exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the seat court. However, when the agreement also has a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction over some other court, the seat court would not have the jurisdiction to deal with matters arising out of the arbitration agreement.
Whether an objection pertaining to maintainability and the jurisdictional issues ought to be raised before the Tribunal constituted by the facilitation council under Section 18 of MSMED Act, 2006?
14. NBCC v. The State of West Bengal
The High Court of Calcutta held that the petitioner shall participate in arbitration and the Tribunal shall decide on its own jurisdiction.
Whether an application for appointment of the arbitrator could be moved in a Court that inherently lacks jurisdiction when there is no designation of the seat of arbitration?
15. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt Ltd v. Aditya Kumar Chaterjee
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court allowing an application for the appointment of an arbitrator. The Court held that the High Court lacked inherent jurisdiction as the parties only agreed that the sittings of the Tribunal would be in Kolkata. Thus, it cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration or place of arbitration, which has a different connotation.
Whether the pendency of an insolvency petition is a bar to an application under Section 11 of the Act?
16. Jasani Realty Pvt Ltd v. Vijay Corporation
The Bombay High Court held that mere pendency of an insolvency petition is not a bar to the application under Section 11 of the Act. The Court held that it is only when the insolvency petition is admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that the embargo would apply.
Whether Section 86(1)(F) of the Electricity Act 2003 will be applicable where the agreement is for the supply of material simpliciter and does not involve any element of transmission, distribution, or trading in electricity?
17. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd v. UP Transmission Corporation Ltd
The Allahabad High Court held that the Electricity Act, 2003 would not apply to a contract that is simply for the supply of material and does not involve any element of transmission, distribution, or trading in electricity. Accordingly, the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act would be maintainable.
Whether trademark disputes raising purely contractual disputes can be referred to arbitration?
18. Vijay Kumar Munjal and Ors v. Pawan Munjal and Ors
The High Court of Delhi held that trademark disputes that purely arise in respect of contractual rights and obligations of the parties can be referred to arbitration.
Whether the time spent in meditation would be excluded from the period of limitation to invoke arbitration?
19. Alstom Systems India Pvt Ltd v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that the time spent by the parties in mediation would be excluded from the period of limitation for the purpose of invocation of arbitration as well as the substantive claims.
Whether the High Court, exercising power under Section 11, can terminate the mandate of the arbitrator on the ground that his mandate stood terminated in view of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act?
20. Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal
The Supreme Court held that the High Court, exercising power under Section 11, cannot terminate the mandate of the arbitrator on the ground that his mandate stood terminated given Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.
Whether the Court can remove an arbitrator whose appointment is hit by Section 12(5) while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act?
21. Om Sai RK Constructions Pvt Ltd v. Forsight Infratech Pvt Ltd
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an arbitrator whose appointment is hit by Section 12(5) of the Act can be removed by the Court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act.
Whether the claims that arose after the Insolvency commencement date can be referred to arbitration?
22. Bharat Petroresources Ltd v. JSW Ispat Special Products Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that whether the liability sought to be enforced against the respondent stands extinguished is a contentious issue and the Court u/s 11 is not required to examine and adjudicate any contentious issue. Therefore, the parties were relegated to arbitration.
Whether all the existing claims should be decided in the same arbitration?
23. Panipat Jalandhar NH 1 Tollway Pvt Ltd v. NHAI
The High Court of Delhi held that multiple arbitrations are permissible if the cause of action arises after the constitution of a tribunal. However, to avoid the constitution of separate arbitral tribunals for separate claims in respect of the same contract, it would be appropriate to raise the claims before the tribunal where proceedings are in progress.
Whether a party can directly invoke the arbitration clause without fulfilling the pre-arbitral steps?
24. Dharmadas Tirthdas Construction Pvt Ltd v. GOI
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that if the conditions precedent to seeking arbitration have not been complied with, then the appointment of the arbitrator can be rejected.
Whether the Court can consider the issue of inadequacy of stamp duty while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act?
25. Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt Ltd v. Waterline Hotels Pvt Ltd
The Supreme Court held that once a party has paid the stamp duty, any objection regarding its sufficiency cannot be decided by a court exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act.
Source: Barandbench
