28 July 2021
-
Non-signatory made party to arbitration: Delhi HC in Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Private Limited v. Rattan India Power Limited & Anr. made the non-signatory to be a party to the arbitration as the non-signatory was the direct beneficiary to the contract. The Delhi HC while compelling the non-signatory to arbitrate considered the payments made, resources shared and involvement of such non-signatory.
-
Court cannot interfere with the arbitral tribunal merely on the ground that it does not concur with the inference drawn by the arbitral tribunal: The Delhi HC in Megha Enterprises and Ors. v. Haldiram Snacks Private Limited held that as an award can be challenged only under the limited grounds mentioned under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if the evaluation of evidence by the arbitral tribunal may be erroneous and the court may take a different view, the court cannot interfere with the arbitral tribunal merely on the ground that it does not concur with the inference drawn by the arbitral tribunal from the evidence led by the parties.
-
Delhi HC grants anti-enforcement injunction: In a first, the Delhi HC granted injunction against enforcement of a foreign court’s directions in Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors. The Delhi HC was dealing with a suit instituted by Interdigital seeking injunction against Xiaomi for alleged infringement of patents of Interdigital.
-
Bombay HC holds that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of the contract between the parties: In Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd, the Bombay HC set aside an arbitral award that went beyond the terms of the agreement between the parties. The Bombay HC clarified that the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is limited to the agreement, and he can only pass an order which may be the subject-matter of reference, unless the parties, by mutual consent agree to enable the arbitrator to settle a dispute by applying what they conceive is 'fair and reasonable.’
-
Sovereign immunity cannot be claimed by a foreign state against enforcement of an arbitral award emerging from a commercial transaction: The Delhi HC, in KLA Const Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. The Embassy of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan held that prior consent of central government is not necessary under civil procedure code to enforce an arbitral award against a foreign state and that a foreign state cannot claim sovereign immunity against enforcement of an arbitral award arising out of a commercial transaction.
TO READ THE DETAILED DISPUTE KNOWLEDGE ALERT, PLEASE CLICK HERE. (8 Pages PDF).
