During the hanging of arbitration, on October 12, 2017, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict to Himangni Enterprises. In the above decision, the Supreme Court was required to determine the ability to arbitrate a rental right dispute over eviction and rent reimbursement issues. It was found that even in one case, in which the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act 1995 – specific legislation for certain rental disputes – do not apply to premises, the mere non-applicability of this special law alone does not apply to the arbitration law. The Supreme Court also explained that, in such cases, the rights of the parties would be governed by the Transfer of Ownership Act of 1882 (TP Act) and that a civil action would therefore be brought before a civil court. The central question of the case was whether the California Civil Code Section 1953 (a) (4) applies to maintenance contracts. The Civil Code of 1953 (a) (4) stipulates that any provision of a “rental or tenancy agreement” that alters or counters a tenant`s procedural rights in litigation is contrary to public policy. University Village submitted that while training contracts include the provision of housing, they are primarily a contract of promise of care and services, usually for the life of a resident. University Village also submitted that the arbitration clauses had been approved by the Department of Social Services and that the Continuing Care Act had anticipated the landlord-tenant act invoked by the court. The applicant, who complained in the previous appeal, filed a motion under Section 8 of the Act, in which she argued that the parties were related to the same thing and that the appeal should be referred to the Court of Arbitration, since the action on the rental file of August 31, 2010 was the origin of the application.
The University of Dorf has attempted to enforce the arbitration provisions of the continuation of care contracts. On June 1, 2020, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District ruled in favour of the applicants. On September 16, 2020, the California Supreme Court dismissed the defendant`s request for review and upheld the Court of Appeal`s decision. While Justice O`Connor described the FAA as “a building of its own creation,” the same description could be applied in practice to the demanding and established activity of the provision of arbitration services. As more and more parties began to include arbitration clauses in contracts – as well as the willingness of the courts to enforce those clauses – there were more disputes requiring arbitration. As a natural result, organizations such as the American Arbitration Association and JAMS have developed rules and procedures that can be almost as detailed and in-depth as those of the judicial systems. A party to arbitration could spend as much time and resources on a practical move as it would engage in public litigation. As the parties have become accustomed to the availability of information through electronic discovery, they expect and insist on the same degree of disclosure in arbitration proceedings.