A bench comprising of Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abdul Nazeer have held that, relying on Section 31(7) (a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, an Arbitrator cannot grant interest for the period between the date of cause of action and date of award, if the parties by agreement had resolved that interest shall not be payable.
The Delhi High Court on levied costs of Rs. 50,000 on a private company which, it opined, indulged in “forum hunting” by filing a Writ Petition indirectly against an order delivered in an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru reiterated that a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against any order of the arbitrator, and that the order under challenge was a continuation of the arbitral proceedings. It then ordered payment of costs to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week.
News Date: 01 May 2017
Delhi High Court has allowed Tata Sons and NTT Docomo to enforce an arbitral award by London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).
News Date: 20 Apr 2017
Supreme Court has held that when there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an arbitration agreement stating that Courts at a particular place alone would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising under the agreement, it would oust all other Courts’ jurisdiction in the matter.
News Date: 05 Apr 2017
Delhi HC has upheld arbitrator’s award directing a man to transfer his registered domain name ‘Googlee’ to Google Inc. on the grounds that the name of the homepage was a “slavish” imitation of the most widely used search engine.
News Date: 29 Mar 2017
Supreme Court has held that even if an arbitrator is specified in agreement for arbitration, Chief Justice or designated Judge is free to appoint an independent arbitrator, having due regard to qualification, if circumstances so warrant.
News Date: 23 Mar 2017
Bombay High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal does not have power to appoint Court receiver of High Court as a receiver under Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amended) Act.
The Delhi High Court by reserving its order in the NTT DoCoMo plea of enforcement of its $1.18 billion arbitration award against Tata sons, made the Ides of March this year extremely uneventful.
The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) on 24th June last year passed an award in favor of NTT DoCoMo, whereby Tata Sons were to pay $1.18 billion as damages for breach of contract in their joint venture with Tata Teleservices. In 2009, Japanese entity NTT DoCoMo acquired a 20 % stake in Tata Teleservices Ltd. As according to the agreement between the two, in a scenario that DoCoMo exercise the sale option to exit this Tata Teleservices investment, Tata Communications Ltd and Tata Power Company Ltd. would acquire the shares of NTT in the same proportions as were held by NTT. Tata Sons agreed to buy NTT’s stakes in the failed Joint Venture, in the month of June 2014, and sought permission from the RBI for the same. However, RBI entered the dispute as Third Party in October 2016, on the grounds that such buy out of NTT violates the foreign direct investment rules.
On 14th March 2017 the Delhi High Court rejected the RBI’s plea to re examine the matter afresh. The Court directed the RBI, to state their locus standi in objecting the enforcement of an arbitral award where both the parties are have mutually accepted the same. The RBI has stated that such a buy back would be a violation of the public policy.
However, on 15th the High Court reserved its order on the matter and has brought it to a standstill temporarily.
- CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM ON BLACK MONEY IS PUBLIC AUTHORITY UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATIONOctober 13, 2017 - 6:55 am
- DELHI HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE JNU’S DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST KANHAIYA KUMAR, UMAR KHALID, ANIRBAN, 12 OTHERSOctober 13, 2017 - 6:54 am
- BOMBAY HIGH COURT IMPOSES 5-LAKH COST ON PETITIONERS FOR SEEKING TO RE-ARGUE CASE WITH DIFFERENT SET OF LAWYERSOctober 12, 2017 - 6:58 am