Arbitration
Clause Saying 'Can Be Settled By Arbitration' Does Not Create Mandate To Arbitrate : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday (April 17) held that an arbitration clause employing the word “can” does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed against the Bombay High Court's decision, which held that Clause 25 of the Bill of Lading containing the arbitration agreement lacked the...
Distinction Between 'Seat' & 'Venue' Of Arbitration : Supreme Court Summarises Principles
The Supreme Court has reiterated that merely conducting arbitral proceedings at a place different from the designated seat of arbitration does not confer jurisdiction on the courts of that location. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's decision, which had refused to entertain the Appellant's Section 34 plea for challenging...
Law Does Not Favour The Indolent: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitration Initiated After 21-Year Delay
The Supreme Court recently quashed arbitration proceedings between the State of West Bengal and a contractor, holding that the claim was ex facie time barred as the notice invoking arbitration was issued after 21 years from completion of work.“Arbitration though is an alternate dispute resolution system, which has to be encouraged, it cannot deviate from the fundamental principle that...
General Reference To Tender Document Containing Arbitration Clause Will Not Amount To Its Incorporation In Contract : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a general reference in a Letter of Intent to an arbitration clause contained in a tender document cannot form a valid arbitration clause to seek an appointment of an arbitrator.A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Bombay High Court order that had appointed an arbitrator in a construction dispute. The High Court...
Understanding The Procedure Of Mediation Under Mediation Act, 2023
In India, access to timely justice has become a mere theoretical fantasy due to the massive backlog of cases and procedural complexities within the judicial system. The growing burden on the Indian courts has resulted in the shift to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like arbitration, conciliation, negotiation and mediation. Both arbitration and conciliation have long been...
Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies To S.11 Arbitration Act; Fresh Arbitration Barred After Abandoning Earlier Claim : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that a party who abandons an earlier arbitration proceeding would be barred from initiating a subsequent arbitration proceeding on the same cause of action. The Court underscored that such conduct amounts to an abuse of the judicial process and is barred on grounds of public policy. “A litigant cannot be permitted to abuse the process of Court to file a...
Can Foreign Arbitral Award Be Challenged In India On Grounds Rejected By Seat Court? Supreme Court Explains 'Transnational Issue Estoppel'
The Supreme Court has held that enforcement of a foreign arbitral award cannot be blocked on “public policy” grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the issue has already been finally decided by the seat court, and Indian courts cannot re-examine the merits under the guise of enforcement, due to the applicability of the doctrine of 'transnational...
Consent Cannot Be Constructed: A Review Of M Space Master Realtors v Mulund Sandhyaprakash
Redevelopment disputes in Mumbai have long exposed a fault line in arbitration law. On one side lies the collective nature of a cooperative housing society, whose decisions bind even dissenting members; on the other lies arbitration, whose foundation remains consent. The two do not always sit comfortably together. The Bombay High Court's recent decision in M Space Master Realtors v...
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...
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...