The Calcutta High Court ruled that an arbitration agreement remains valid even if it does not specify the applicable law, seat, or venue, as long as there is a clear intent to refer disputes to a private tribunal.

The case involved a dispute over payments under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for a government project.

The respondent argued the clause was invalid due to missing details, but the court held that the absence of specifics does not negate arbitration if parties intended to resolve disputes privately.

The court also disqualified the named arbitrator for being an interested party and appointed an independent arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that an arbitration clause cannot be invoked for matters already adjudicated by both the Arbitral Tribunal and the judiciary.

The case involved a lease dispute where the Petitioner sought arbitration after the lease termination was upheld by courts, including the Supreme Court.

The court held that arbitration was not an available recourse as the dispute had reached finality. It emphasized that the Petitioner could seek relief only through a competent civil court.

Dismissing the petition, the court concluded that fresh arbitral proceedings on the same grounds were legally impermissible and fundamentally misconceived.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the time spent prosecuting an application before the wrong court should be excluded when calculating the three-month limitation period under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court held that proceedings before the incorrect court must be bona fide and pursued with due diligence. 

Relying on precedents, including Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt., the court set aside the District Judge’s order, clarifying that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to arbitration matters.

The case involved Incite Homecare Products Pvt Ltd challenging the dismissal of their application as time-barred. 

The Supreme Court recently held that on the death of any partner in a partnership firm, the arbitration agreement does not cease to exist but the legal heirs of the deceased party will become bound to the existing arbitration agreement. 

The same arbitration agreement can be enforced by or against any legal representatives of the deceased person. 

The court referred to Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel (2008) for its decision, and emphasized on the definition of a legal representative under section 2(1)(g) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitration award of ₹28 crore against Bajaj Finance, dismissing its challenge in a dispute over a Loan Against Securities (LAS) agreement with stock trader Seetha Kumari under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court ruled that Bajaj Finance unlawfully sold pledged securities despite Kumari maintaining adequate margin coverage.

The court found that the financial institution failed to provide the mandatory three-day notice before selling shares, violating the LAS agreement.

The High Court rejected Bajaj Finance’s claims, affirming that the arbitrator’s decision was commercially sound and legally valid, leading to the dismissal of its appeal.

The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, being a specific law, prevails over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a general law.

The Court ruled that Section 18 and Section 24 of the MSMED Act contain non-obstante clauses, giving it an overriding effect.

The court dismissed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing that the MSME Facilitation Council must adjudicate disputes involving MSMEs.

The ruling strengthens the statutory mechanism for delayed payments and interest recovery under the MSMED Act.

The Delhi High Court set aside the arbitral award favouring Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), ruling that its extraction of ‘Migrated Gas’ from ONGC’s blocks without permission violated the Public Trust Doctrine and the Production Sharing Contract (PSC). 

The Court held that natural resources under Article 297 belong to the Union of India (UOI) as a trustee. 

ONGC had accused RIL of unauthorized extraction, leading to arbitration, which initially favoured RIL.

The High Court, however, ruled in favour of UOI, citing patent illegality and misinterpretation of the PSC, expanding its review under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act.

The Delhi High Court ruled that time spent in mediation can be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing a written statement under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

The bench stated that forcing parties to file pleadings during mediation would undermine the process and its goal of an amicable settlement.

The ruling came in a property dispute where the defendants sought condonation of delay in filing their written statements. 

Citing Section 89 CPC and the Supreme Court’s decision in Vikram Bakshi & Others v. Sonia Khosla (2014), the court allowed the delay while imposing a ₹5,000 cost payable to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.

The Supreme Court upheld an arbitral award against a husband, ruling that his oral undertaking to share liability for his wife's demat account falls within the scope of the arbitration clause. 

Oral contracts in stock market transactions are enforceable and can impose joint and several Liability. 

The dispute arose when AC Chokshi Share Broker Pvt. Ltd. initiated arbitration over a ₹1.18 crore debit balance in the wife's trading account. 

The Court overturned the High Court's decision, emphasising that the husband's active participation in transactions created an implied agreement. 

It held that arbitration could be invoked against non-signatories under Bye-law 248(a) of BSE Bye-laws, 1957. 

Hence, an appeal was allowed. 

The Calcutta High Court recently ruled that an arbitral tribunal can rectify calculation errors Suo Motu under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without a separate application from the parties.

The dispute arose from a work order for road construction between the Haldia Development Authority (HDA) and Konark Enterprises. 

HDA contested a refund (Rs. 9,06,091.44) granted to Konark Enterprises and sought increased risk expenses due to calculation errors. 

The court agreed with HDA on the flawed calculation and set aside that part of the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. 

The Supreme Court ruled that court fee refunds are only allowed when disputes are resolved through recognized Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like arbitration or mediation.

The Supreme Court held that litigants who resolve their disputes privately outside of court are not entitled to a refund of court fees.

Earlier, in the case of Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya v. Union of India & Ors., the petitioner sought a refund after a private settlement, which the Court denied, upholding the High Court's decision.

The ruling emphasises the importance of formal legal pathways for fee refunds. 

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a civil court’s jurisdiction is not automatically barred by an arbitration clause unless explicitly excluded, subject to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

The plaintiffs sued for specific performance after the defendants failed to deliver flats despite legal notices and assurances. The court granted an interim injunction for completion within three months.

Defendants sought arbitration, but the court, relying on S. Vanathan Muthuraja (1997), ITI Ltd. v. Siemens (2002), and Mahesh Kumar v. RSRTC (2006), held that arbitration clauses alone do not oust civil court jurisdiction.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Calcutta High Court, in a case involving Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, emphasized that the provision intends to encourage amicable, informal, and cost-effective resolution of commercial disputes through pre-institution mediation, with litigation being the last resort. 

The court observed that urgency under Section 12A must be genuine and not a pretext to bypass mandatory mediation. 

Relying on Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (2022), the court modified interim relief, allowing the appellant to utilize funds after paying Rs. 2 crores and filing an affidavit of assets, ensuring equitable treatment of creditors.

The Delhi High Court ruled that appointing an arbitrator for International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) by the High Court does not invalidate the award.

The case involved cross-petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award.

Petitioners argued the arbitrator’s appointment by the High Court violated Section 11(6), which mandates Supreme Court appointments in ICA cases.

The court held that objections should have been raised during arbitration, citing Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia, and upheld the award since the appointment aligned with the arbitration agreement.

The challenge was dismissed.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the existence of an arbitration agreement cannot be decided ex-parte without allowing the respondent to present their stand.

The case arose from disputes in a lease deed, where a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed by the District Judge because the arbitration agreement was no longer valid.

The High Court emphasized that arbitration agreements, due to the principle of separability, remain independent of the main contract. The court set aside the District Judge’s order, terming the ex-parte decision premature.