Bringing you the latest updates in the space of arbitration and online dispute resolution straight out of court

A petition came to be filed before the Bombay High Court seeking substitution of an arbitrator on the ground of lack of consensus on appointment of the arbitrator. The Court prima facie observed that the petition is misconceived since the terms and conditions agreed between the parties (contained in the form of a link) entailed conciliation and arbitration by a named and pre-agreed online dispute resolution institution.

The question before the Delhi High Court was whether appointment of an arbitrator through an arbitration institution amounts to unilateral appointment of an arbitrator. After examining the arbitration clause, the Court held that the appointment of the arbitrator was made by the institution which was designated as the appointing authority by mutual consent in the agreement.

The case arose out of a dispute between Beleverdere Resources DMC, a UAE based company and OCL Iron and Steel Ltd. concerning a coal supply transaction. The Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") seeking interim protection ahead of the arbitration proceedings before the SIAC.

A challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") came to be filed before the Delhi High Court beyond the 3-month limitation period. It was argued that the service of award through email did not amount to a valid delivery under Section 31(5) of the Act and that the limitation period should run from the date of receiving the physical copy of the award.

This case arose out of two Execution Petitions filed by Sundaram Finance Ltd. ("the Petitioner") before the District Court, Kottayam, seeking enforcement of interim measures granted by an arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act"). The measures were issued against borrowers ("the Respondents") who had defaulted on loan repayments.