Arbitration Monthly Digest: May 2025

Supreme Court When Can Court Remand Arbitral Award To Tribunal Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act ? Supreme Court Explains Case Details : GAYATRI BALASAMY Versus M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED| SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508 The Supreme Court Constitution Bench recently held that the powers of Courts to remand arbitral awards back to the...

Supreme Court Criticises Arbitration Bill 2024 For Not Recognising Power To Implead Non-Signatories, Urges Union To Make Changes

The Supreme Court today (May 2) expressed its dissatisfaction with the continued absence of explicit statutory recognition for the power of arbitral tribunals to implead or join non-signatory parties. The Court noted with concern that, despite earlier omissions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the newly proposed Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, which seeks to overhaul...

When Can Court Remand Arbitral Award To Tribunal Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act ? Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench recently held that the powers of Courts to remand arbitral awards back to the Tribunal under S. 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be seen as a straight-jacket formula. The Court observed that an award should be remitted back only if there is a possibility to correct a defect in the award, but if the entire award suffers...

Separate Notice For Counter Claims U/S 21 Of A&C Act Not Required When Arbitration Proceedings Are Pending Between Parties: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has observed that where the disputes between the parties are already the subject matter of an earlier arbitral reference, a separate notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) would not be necessary for separate proceedings to adjudicate counter claims. Facts The present petition under...

Compensation Can Be Granted When Aggrieved Party Continues Service Due To Suppression Of Fact Of Contract's Termination: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R.Madhusudhan Rao has held that loss of profit incurred by a party due to the other party's suppression of material facts regarding the termination of the contract, where the former continued to render services under a mistaken belief, can be reasonably compensated by applying the Hudson formula. Brief...

Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards In Certain Circumstances Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court By 4:1

Answering a reference, a Constitution Bench (by 4:1) of the Supreme Court held that Appellate Courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under either Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The majority judgment by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna held that the Courts have a limited power under Section 34/37 to modify arbitral...

Karnataka High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunctions In Favour Of Neil Patel Digital LLC In Dispute Over Breach Of LLP Agreement

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has passed ex-parte injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in favour of Neil Patel Digital LLC (“NPD LLC”). The disputes had arisen from breach of the covenants of a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement. The LLP Agreement contained various negative covenants restricting the Respondent...

Interest Of 18% Can't Be Claimed In Arbitrations Commencing Before 2015 Amendment, When Award Specifies Particular Rate: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that interest at the default rate of 18% under unamended Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be claimed when the arbitral proceedings commenced before the 2015 amendment and the parties have not agreed to apply the amended provision....

S.34 Arbitration Act | Respect Arbitral Autonomy; Judicial Interference Should Be Minimal : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the courts cannot go beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) while deciding an application for setting aside of an award."the role of the court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is clearly demarcated. It is a restrictive jurisdiction and has to be invoked in a conservative manner. The reason is...

Delhi High Court Dismisses BSNL's Appeal U/S 37 Of A & C Act, Upholds Arbitral Award Of Rs. 43.52 Crore

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia dismissed BSNL's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) holding that the Single Judge correctly upheld the Arbitrator's finding that Vihaan Networks Limited carried out the work under the Advance Purchase Order, issued on BSNL's specific instructions, which...

Arbitrator Cannot Be Substituted U/S 29A(6) Of A&C Act Unless Grounds Mentioned U/S 14 & 15 Are Satisfied: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that even though the term "substitution" is mentioned under Section 29-A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), an arbitrator cannot be substituted in an application under this section unless the grounds specified in Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration Act are satisfied, which...

Bombay HC Dismisses Appeal Against Order U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Injuncting Owner Of Kapani Resorts From Disposing Of Interest In Properties

The Bombay High Court bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe And Justice M. S. Karnik has upheld the order passed by the Single Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), injuncting the owner of the Kailash property and Kapani Resorts from alienating or disposing of any interest in the properties until the completion of the...