[Arbitration Act] Retroactive Application Of Judicial Decisions To Arbitral Awards Would Create Legal & Procedural Chaos: Allahabad High Court

Elucidating on the applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Ors 2019, the Allahabad High Court has held that “retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos.”For context, in Tarsem Singh (supra), the Apex Court held that the provisions regarding solatium and interest provided in the...

S. 4 Limitation Act Can't Be Invoked Using 30-Day Extension For Arbitration Appeals Filed Beyond 3-Months From Award: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that if an arbitral award is challenged beyond the three-month limitation, the benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act will not be available. The Court held that the 30-day extension period mentioned in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be included in the "prescribed period" in Section 4 of the Limitation...

Even Without Further Allegation Of Bias Under Section 12(5) Of Arbitration Act, Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is Ineligible: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even a unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, without any further allegation of bias under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, renders the Arbitrator ineligible. The bench held that in addition to the grounds specifically mentioned in Section 12(5) read with the Seventh...

Time From Filing Section 34 Petition To 2015 Amendment Excluded From Limitation Period For Enforcing Arbitral Awards: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held the time period starting from the filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act till the amendment to the Arbitration Act in 2015, stands excluded from the counting of the limitation period for the enforcement of the arbitral award. It held that the period from the filing of the Section 34 application until...

Callous Attitude Of Arbitrator: Himachal Pradesh High Court Criticizes Arbitrator For Not Completing Arbitral Proceedings Within Prescribed Time

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Bipin Chander Negi onus is upon the arbitrator to perform the task entrusted to them within the time schedule prescribed in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench noted that criticized an arbitrator appointed by Central Government under the National Highways Act for his callous attitude. The court noted...

Government of Jammu and Kashmir Mandates Strict Adherence To Arbitration Time Limits To Prevent Financial Losses

The Department of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir has issued a circular and underscored the critical importance of adhering strictly to time limits in arbitration proceedings. The circular observed shortcomings where arbitration cases have not been handled promptly which led to serious repercussions. Often, it noted that references...

Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates

The Court opined that bulky pleadings make arbitration proceedings time-consuming and ineffective.

Arbitration Cases Half Yearly Digest: January To June 2024

Supreme Court High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425 The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power...

Non-Response To Demands Invalidates Invocation of Mutual Negotiations Clause in Arbitration Agreements: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that if a party didn't respond to the demands and requests made by the other party, it can't invoke the part of the arbitration clause that such disputes and differences shall be an endeavoured to be resolved by mutual negotiations as a condition precedent for invoking the...

MSMED Act Prevail Over Arbitration Act, Seller Can Approach Facilitation Council Even In Presence Of Arbitration Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy held that the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006 will prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that even if parties have an arbitration agreement, if the seller falls under the purview of the MSMED, it has the right to seek resolution through the designated authority for...

Arbitrator Involved In Another Dispute Between Same Parties Is Not Automatically Disqualified: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice R. Devdas has held that prior involvement as an arbitrator in a dispute or multiple appointments by one of the parties or its affiliate does not automatically disqualify an individual from serving as an arbitrator in subsequent cases. The crucial factor lies in the arbitrator's ability to demonstrate independence and impartiality in...

Arbitration Cases Monthly Digest: June 2024

Supreme Court High Court Not Having Original Civil Jurisdiction Cannot Extend Time To Pass Arbitral Award As Per S.29A(4) Arbitration Act : Supreme Court Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 425 The Supreme Court held that a High Court which does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power...