RMLNLU Moot Court Committee’s Post

PLJ 2024 Lahore 727 Can a Court dismiss the objections to the award but at the same time refuse to make the award a Rule of the Court on the ground that the application to that effect was not within limitation? Held: The law of limitation contemplates general principle of administration of justice, which has the effect of preventing a party from having recourse to redressal of rights through judicial process even where such rights subsist and therefore, any law whereby the recourse to the Court(s) is restricted, must be construed strictly. This Court is of the view that once an award is before the Court, either through the Arbitrator(s) or any party (for example the respondent), then in terms of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940, it is the duty of Court to examine the same and see whether it suffers from any patent illegality or if there is any cause to remit the award to the Arbitrator(s) irrespective of the fact that opposite party (the petitioner in present case) has not approached the Court within time. Furthermore, it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the award, which is independent of the fact whether any side has objected to the same or not or the application of one of the parties to arbitration proceedings is time barred. Civil Revision-931-18 SULTAN MEHMOOD RANA V. NAEEM AHMAD, etc

PLJ 2024 Lahore 727 Can a Court dismiss the objections to the award but at the same time refuse to make the award a Rule of the Court on the ground that the application to that effect was not within limitation? Held: The law of limitation contemplates general principle of administration of justice, which has the effect of preventing a party from having recourse to redressal of rights through judicial process even where such rights subsist and therefore, any law whereby the recourse to the Court(s) is restricted, must be construed strictly. This Court is of the view that once an award is before the Court, either through the Arbitrator(s) or any party (for example the respondent), then in terms of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940, it is the duty of Court to examine the same and see whether it suffers from any patent illegality or if there is any cause to remit the award to the Arbitrator(s) irrespective of the fact that opposite party (the petitioner in present case) has not approached the Court within time. Furthermore, it is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the award, which is independent of the fact whether any side has objected to the same or not or the application of one of the parties to arbitration proceedings is time barred. Civil Revision-931-18 SULTAN MEHMOOD VS NAEEM AHMAD

Telangana High Court Rules MSMED Act Prevails Over Arbitration Act Case Title: M/S. Lignite Power Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Totale Global Private Ltd The Telangana High Court bench of Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy recently held that the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) will prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court ruled that even if parties have an arbitration agreement, a seller under the MSMED Act can seek resolution through the designated authority for its claims. Brief Facts: The Applicant, engaged in electricity production in Rajasthan, sought to purchase refractories from the Respondent, a manufacturer based in Chennai. The Applicant alleged delays and poor workmanship by the Respondent, leading to damages and a shutdown of the plant. Consequently, the Applicant approached the Telangana High Court under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint a sole arbitrator as per the work order agreement. The Respondent contested, citing ongoing proceedings under the MSMED Act before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) in Chennai. They argued that the arbitration application was not maintainable due to these statutory proceedings. Observations by the High Court: Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Silpi Industries vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the High Court emphasized that the MSMED Act, as a special statute, overrides the Arbitration Act. It noted that if a seller falls under the MSMED Act, they can approach the competent authority irrespective of any arbitration agreement. The court highlighted the importance of allowing counterclaims by buyers before the Facilitation Council to avoid conflicting findings and parallel proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application, harmonizing the statutory obligations under the MSMED Act with the dispute resolution mechanisms of the Arbitration Act. This judgment reaffirms the precedence of the MSMED Act in providing a statutory framework for resolving disputes involving micro, small, and medium enterprises.

𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐁𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭 | 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 | 𝐀𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬𝐡𝐚 𝐒𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢 Akanksha S., a law student at UILS, Panjab University writes for The Arbitration Digest on the topic titled 𝑷𝒓𝒆-𝑨𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒂: 𝑬𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒖𝒔 𝑫𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝑭𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌𝒔 Link to the article: https://lnkd.in/gTDVZEcc #Arbitration #DisputeResolution #MultiTieredDisputeResolution #PreArbitralSteps #MandatoryArbitrationClauses #DirectoryArbitrationClauses #IndianJudiciary #CommercialLitigation #AlternativeDisputeResolution #ADR #ContractLaw #ArbitrationLaw #LegalAnalysis

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s Stand on Delays in Arbitration: A Key Takeaway for Businesses At WeVaad, we recognize the importance of efficient and timely resolution of disputes through Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). A recent ruling by the Himachal Pradesh High Court highlights exactly why prompt action in arbitration cases is crucial. In the case State of H.P. and another vs M/s Mengi Engineering Company, the court ruled that simply moving a case file between government departments is not enough to justify a delay in filing objections under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The state's attempt to condone the delay in submitting objections was rejected, emphasizing that deadlines in arbitration cases need to be strictly followed. Key Takeaways: Timely Objections are Critical: The statutory three-month period for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is strictly enforced. Any attempt to delay beyond this must have a valid and substantial reason. Administrative Delays Won’t Be Accepted: To be corrected is not an excuse:non-substantive changes to an award will not extend the filing deadline. This judgment is a reminder for businesses and government agencies alike to remain diligent in responding to arbitration awards. Delays can have serious consequences, potentially leading to the dismissal of your objections. At WeVaad, we help businesses stay on top of their disputes by resolving them efficiently and within the legal timelines. Our Online Dispute Resolution services are designed to save time, reduce costs, and avoid the risks associated with delayed filings. Have a similar case or dispute to resolve? Get in touch with us today to learn how we can assist you in resolving disputes quickly and effectively, avoiding delays like those seen in this case. Vivad hai ? Toh WeVaad hai! #Arbitration #DisputeResolution #ODR #LegalTech #JusticeDelivered #Law #HimachalPradeshHighCourt #WeVaad #CondonationOfDelay #LegalAwareness #LegalUpdates

Facts for consideration. Respondent No.1 Council passed an Award on 14.7.2023. The applicant filed recall application on 31.8.2023 within three months period. In the meanwhile, the Applicant has filed Section 34 petition on 18.7.2024. The applicant filed interim application for condonation of delay of 272 days in filing this petition.  HELD that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Section 14 of LA only excludes certain period taken in prior proceedings. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the present Arbitral Petition since the time taken in prosecution the prior proceedings of Recall Application are to be excluded.  #bombayhighcourt #arbitration #award #msmecouncil #delay #limitation #legadeli LegalDeli.in

Pleased to share that a piece which I'd written on 'The Need for Developing Uniform Guidelines for Legal Privilege in International Arbitration' for NLS Business Law Review with Pratyush Khanna is now live. Do give it a read and share your thoughts! Kachwaha & Partners - India #arbitration #article #India #legalprivilege #IPBA https://lnkd.in/gzY2mcXh

I'm pleased to share that I recently appeared in a case before the Bombay High Court, which has important implications for arbitration law in India. In the case of Kisan Moulding Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) Konkan Thane & Anr., the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Key points from the judgment: 1. The court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which excludes time consumed in proceedings before a court without jurisdiction, applies to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act as well. 2. The court excluded 272 days spent in prosecuting a recall application before the MSME Council, emphasizing that parties acting in good faith should benefit from Section 14 when prior proceedings were affected by jurisdictional issues. 3. The judgment uploads the principle that the term "court" in Section 14 should be interpreted broadly to include quasi-judicial tribunals. This ruling is significant as it provides clarity on limitation periods in arbitration cases and offers protection to parties who may have pursued proceedings in good faith before the wrong forum. I'm grateful for the opportunity to have been part of the legal team representing the petitioner in this matter. #asahilegal #arbitration #ArbitrationLaw #LegalPrecedent #BombayHighCourt #LimitationAct https://lnkd.in/dsNdeTiQ

Thanks for sharing the post. Three important and salutary features of Regulations - use of AI Software for translation, Legal Aid and Minimal Arbitration Fees will go a long way for the benefit of the stake holders. #msedact #micro #small #enterprise #iiac #regulations2024 #arbitration #legaldeli

Arbitration law Update a) Calcutta High Court Courts have no jurisdiction and authority to comment on the correctness of arbitration award while dealing with any post award application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Excerpts The Calcutta High Court has held that while hearing a post award application under Section 9 of the A&C Act, the Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of the award. The Division Bench of Justices I.P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury held that the Court would not adjudicate on whether the damages awarded in the arbitral award are correct or not. Case: Meleveetil Damodaran v. UpHealth Holdings Inc, AP-COM No. 490 of 2024 b) Gujarat High Court Additional award can be made by an arbitrator by entertaining application under Section 33 of the A&C Act to provide an interpretation on the original award or to rectify any typo or other errors The High Court of Gujarat has held that after an award is delivered by the arbitrator, it can entertain an application under Section 33 of the A&C Act and correct any typographical errors or provide an interpretation on the award by making an additional award. The bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee held that the arbitrator can provide calculations by way of an additional award if in the earlier award it had only determined the liability of the parties without clarifying the exact amount payable under the award. The Court held that an arbitrator would not be going beyond the original award if it confines itself to the interpretation and quantification of the amount under the heads awarded in the original award. Case: Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Man Industries (India) Ltd, First Appeal No. 1257 of 2024 c) Telangana High Court A well-reasoned and articulated decision should be provided by Courts executing an arbitration award Excerpts The Telangana High Court division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti set aside an order passed by the executing court noting that it was arrived in a cryptic and cavalier manner without providing explanation or reasoning. It held that since the dispute between the parties was about the computation of the amount due and payable under the arbitral award, the executing court should have passed a well-reasoned and speaking order. Source: Livelaw