Arbitration
Mere Participation In Arbitration Does Not Estop Party From Challenging Inherent Lack Of Jurisdiction Of Arbitrator : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that in the absence of an arbitration agreement, a mere participation of a party to a unilaterally invoked arbitration proceedings would not operate as an estoppel to bar it from raising the legality of the arbitral award being non-est in law. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe affirmed the Bombay High Court's decision which had declared the award passed against the Respondent to be non-est, as the award was passed by the arbitrator who lacked the...
Extension Of Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 29A Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act
The Dispute Resolution process through Arbitration has always been appealing due to its efficiency and quick resolution. However, over time, the reality of Arbitral proceedings became similar to Court Proceedings due to the long delays in pronouncing Arbitral Awards. Hence, to resolve this, the Indian Legislature in 2015 introduced Section 29A in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act of 1996 ('1996 Act'). Section 29A of the 1996 Act imposes a deadline on the Arbitral Tribunal by requiring it to...
Arbitration | Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Active Participation In Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that a party which participates in arbitration proceedings without raising a jurisdictional objection at the appropriate stage cannot subsequently raise a technical plea of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal upon passing of an adverse award. “A party cannot keep a 'jurisdictional ace' up their sleeve and then claim that filing of the jurisdictional...
Arbitral Tribunal Can't Grant Pre-Award & Pendente Lite Interest When Contract Prohibits It : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that pre-award interest or pendente lite interest cannot be granted by a arbitral tribunal in form of a compensation when the contract expressly prohibits it.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi set aside that part of the Allahabad High Court's order, which had upheld the grant of pre-award interest to the Respondents in a form of compensation...
From Finality To Flexibility: Post-Gayatri Balasamy Jurisprudence In Indian Arbitration (2025)
The Hon'ble Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah in his speech “Keeping the Spirit of the Common Law Alive”, once said that “Flexibility is the prime virtue of common law. The genius of common law lies in its capacity for evolution and adaptability, as well as its resilience to cope with the demands of the times.”[1] This statement fits well within Indian arbitration jurisprudence. Last year,...
Substitution Of Arbitrators, Unaddressed Statutory Imperative In Jagdeep Chowgule
The evolution of arbitration law in India reflects a persistent legislative endeavour to create an efficient alternative to traditional litigation. The Arbitration Act, 1940, despite its historical significance, was marked by excessive judicial oversight and procedural complexity that often defeated the very purpose of arbitration. The arbitral process under the 1940 regime became mired...
Post-Award Property Purchasers Have No Right To Resist Execution Of Arbitral Award : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a transferee who purchases property from a judgment-debtor during the pendency of proceedings has no locus to resist or object to the decree passed in favour of the judgment-creditor. A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti considered the matter, where the appellant, having purchased the property from Respondent No. 2...
Substitution Of Arbitrator Is Not Mandatory On Termination Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Under S. 29A : Supreme Court
Upon termination of the arbitral tribunal's mandate, the Court has the discretion either to extend the mandate of the existing tribunal or to appoint a substitute arbitrator while granting such extension.
High Courts Cannot Nullify Arbitral Proceedings While Appointing Substitute Arbitrator : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that it is impermissible for the High Courts to interfere with an arbitration proceeding while deciding an application seeking a substitution of an arbitrator. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan set aside a Bombay High Court order that had declared arbitral proceedings a nullity while considering an application for substitution of...
Arbitration Act | S.37 Court Cannot Recalculate Damages Awarded By S. 34 Court Without Finding Arbitrariness Or Perversity : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that a court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot re-calculate or substitute its own assessment of compensation once a Section 34 court has fixed a reasonable award within the terms of the contract.A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar restored a Delhi...
Party Who Accepted S.11 Order For Arbitrator Appointment Can't Later Question Validity Of Arbitration Clause Under Pre-2015 Regime: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 4) reiterated that under the pre-2015 amendment regime, once a party consents to a court order appointing an arbitrator, they cannot subsequently challenge the existence or validity of the arbitration clause before the arbitral tribunal or in proceedings under Section 34. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard an...