Arbitration Cases Quarterly Digest: October To December 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 the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). “For the reasons to follow, while allowing the appeal we have held that as this is a case arising out of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by operation of Section 31(7)(b), the sum directed to be paid under the Arbitral Award shall carry interest. This is a first principle. A sum directed to be paid by an Arbitral Award must carry interest. In this view of the matter, we have restored the judgment of the District Court granting 18% interest from the date of the award to its realization.”, the Court held. Eviction Order Under Public Premises Act Doesn't Bar Arbitration For Contractual Disputes : Supreme Court Case Title: CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR. VERSUS M/S SIDHARTHA TILES AND SANITARY PVT. LTD., C.A. No. 011723 / 2024 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 822 The Supreme Court observed that an eviction order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act would not come in the way while invoking the arbitration clause upon filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for appointment of an arbitrator to decide contractual disputes. The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when the agreement entered between the parties specifically contains an arbitration clause saying that the dispute arising out of an agreement (especially renewal of the agreement) would be resolved by the arbitration then the order of the estate officer under the Public Premises Act ejecting the party being in unauthorized possession after the expiry of the agreement would not restrain the dispossessed party to invoke the arbitration clause to decide the dispute arising out of the agreement. 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 in addition to the arbitral award amount as a condition precedent for seeking a stay on the enforcement of the award just because the government entity was not a flight risk. The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the law qua arbitration proceedings cannot be differently applied merely because of the status of the respondent-entity as a statutory undertaking. Arbitral Tribunal May Impose Costs On Party Abusing Referral Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Compel Another's Participation In Arbitration : Supreme Court Case Title: ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKH VERSUS ASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. & ANR., ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2019 Citation :2024 LiveLaw (SC) 868 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 might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne by the party which the Tribunal ultimately finds to have abused the process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other party to the arbitration.”, the court said. Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Clauses In Public-Private Contracts Invalid; Can't Compel Selection Of Arbitrators From PSU's Panels : Supreme Court Case details : CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION vs. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY C.A. No. 009486 - 009487 / 2019 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874 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 of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was considering the validity of an arbitration clause which prescribes that the...

Arbitration Cases Quarterly Digest: October To December 2024

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags