Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up [20th January-26th January 2025]

Supreme Court Can HC Appoint Sole Arbitrator When Arbitration Clause Provides For Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator ? Supreme Court To Consider Case Detail : M/S R.S. CONSTRUCTION vs. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT SLP(C) No. 000979 - / 2025 The Supreme Court on Monday ( January 20) agreed to consider the issue of whether the High Court can appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 if the arbitration agreement between parties provides for unilateral appointment in violation of the decision in CORE v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the order of the Patna High Court which refused to appoint an arbitrator under S. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in a tender-related dispute. Here, the petitioner who is a private party entered into a work contract with the Building Construction Department of Govt. of Bihar. The High Court ultimately rejected the request of appointing a sole arbitrator. Arbitration Act | Courts' Jurisdiction Under Sections 34 and 37 Do Not Extend To Modifying Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Reiterates Case Title: S. JAYALAKSHMI VERSUS THE SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER & ORS. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 98 Recently, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle laid down in National Highways Authority of India vs. M. Hakeem & Another that the jurisdiction of the Courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) will not extend to modifying an arbitral award. The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing the case dealing with the land acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956. Dissatisfied with the Arbitral Tribunal's decision to award land acquisition compensation @ ₹495/sq.m, the Appellant preferred application before the District Court under Section 34, which had modified the award and enhanced the compensation to be payable @ ₹4,500/sq.m with 9% interest. Can Arbitral Awards Be Modified Under S. 34 & S.37 Of Arbitration Act? Supreme Court Refers To 5 Judge Bench The Supreme Court today (January 23) referred to a 5 judge constitution bench the issue of whether Courts have the power to modify an arbitral award under S. 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan directed that while considering the scope of powers of the Court to modify arbitral awards, an examination of the scope and contours of S. 34 and 37 will also be needed. The Court would also need to see the extent to which modification powers can be given if such modification is allowed. Notably, in February 2024, a bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta, K.V. Viswanathan, and Sandeep Mehta referred to the larger bench the question of whether the courts have the power to modify the arbitral award under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. S. 16 Arbitration Act | Challenge To Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Impermissible After Submitting Statement Of Defence : Supreme Court Case Title: M/S VIDYAWATI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 105 The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after the submission of the statement of defence. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case in which the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal after submitting its statement of defence. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the objection and subsequently passed an award. However, the District Judge set aside this award, and this decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court. Taking reference to Section 16(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act"), the Appellant argued that the High Court erred in affirming the District Judge's decision to set aside the arbitral award. The Appellant contended that by accepting the appointment of the sole arbitrator and being allowed to modify its statement of defence, the Respondent waived its right to challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction after the statement of defence had been filed. High Courts Bombay High Court Serving Signed Copy Of Award To Employee Of Party Does Not Constitute Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Case Title: Health Care, Medical & General Stores Versus Amulya Investment,Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. Narvekar Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 23 The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that service of a signed copy of an award on an employee of a party to an arbitration agreement is not a valid service under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act. The court at the outset noted that section 2(h) of the Arbitration Act defines the ...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up [20th January-26th January 2025]

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags