Arbitration
Award In Which Vital Evidence Are Not Considered Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality U/S 34: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya affirmed that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that if there is a perversity in the award insofar as the non-consideration of vital evidence is concerned, the same tantamounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian Law as well as gives rise to a patent illegality, which is a sufficient ground...
Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 4th November To 10th November 2024
Supreme Court Government Entity Can't Be Given Differential Treatment While Staying Operation Of Arbitral Award : Supreme Court Case Title: International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd Versus Kamarajar Port Limited, Case Number- Civil Appeal No 12097 of 2024 Recently, the Supreme Court disapproved of a High Court's decision to exempt a government entity from depositing other amounts...
Plea Of Limitation Shall Be Deemed To Be Waived If Not Raised Before Arbitrator U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that plea of limitation cannot be allowed to be raised first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act if no such plea was taken before the Arbitrator under section 16 of the Act. The court further observed that it shall be deemed to have been waived as per section 4 of the Act. Brief Facts This...
Arbitration Monthly Digest: October 2024
Supreme Court Arbitral Award Must Carry Post-Award Interest As Per S. 31(7)(b) : Supreme Court Case Title: R.P. GARG VERSUS THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10472 OF 2024 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 794 The Supreme Court held that the post-award period shall carry a rate of interest decided as per Section 31(7)(b) of...
Analysing Jurisprudence On Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate After Expiry Of Period U/S 29A Of A&C Act Before & After SC's Decision In Rohan Builders
IntroductionSection 29A was introduced into the Arbitration Act in 2015 to provide a clear-cut timeline within which an arbitral tribunal has to render an award. It provides that the mandate of the tribunal shall terminate if the award is not rendered within 12 months or a further extended period of 6 months as consented to by the parties. If the award is not rendered within that time period,...
Determining 'Seat' In International Arbitration : Supreme Court Takes Shift From 'Closest Connection Test', Says Express Designation Of Place Matters
In a key ruling on International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement grants non-exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign court, that court is considered the "seat of arbitration." The Court reaffirmed the BALCO principle that Indian courts lack supervisory jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for arbitrations...
Telangana High Court Reiterates Limited Scope For Interference With Arbitral Awards U/S 34 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao has held that an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the encashment of a bank guarantee does not warrant interference under section 34 of the Act. The court also held that section 34 does not permit the...
Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Clauses In Public-Private Contracts Invalid; Can't Compel Selection Of Arbitrators From PSU's Panels : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday (November 8) ruled against clauses allowing Public Sector Undertakings to unilaterally appoint arbitrators to decide disputes with private contractors. The Constitution Bench held that while PSUs can maintain a panel of potential arbitrators, they cannot compel the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel.The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice...
Construction Of Contract's Terms Is Task Of Arbitrator, Cannot Be Interfered With U/S 34 Unless Construction Is Unreasonable: Madras HC
The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide unless the Arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do then only interference under section 34 of the Arbitration...
Arbitral Tribunal May Impose Costs On Party Abusing Referral Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Compel Another's Participation In Arbitration : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, the Arbitral Tribunal may impose costs on the Party who abused the process of law constraining another party to participate in the Arbitral Proceedings by taking advantage of minimal judicial interference at the referral stage. “In order to balance such a limited scope of judicial interference with the interests of the parties who...
Award Must Not Be Set Aside On Ground Of Mere Erroneous Application Of Law Unless Patent Illegality Is Established U/S 34: Madras HC
The Madras High Court bench of Justices M.Sundar And K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi affirmed that the scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited and within the contours of the ground specified under Section 34 of the Act. To put it otherwise, the award is not required to be set aside on the ground of mere erroneous application of law or by reappreciation...