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 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. Allahabad High Court Application U/S. 34 Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act Not To Be Dismissed For Non-filing Of Certified Copy Of Arbitral Award If Explanation Provided: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Ram Babu Vishkarma v. M/S Shriram Finance Ltd and Anr. Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:159310-DB The Allahabad High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar has observed that if a certified/signed copy of the award cannot be obtained and filed with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966, filing a copy of the award along with an explanation would be an appropriate exercise. Petition Under Article 227 Not Maintainable Against Orders Of Tribunal When Remedies U/S 34 & 37 Of Arbitration Act Are Available: Allahabad HC Case Title: U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Thru. Housing Commissioner and Others v. Universal Contractors and Engineers Ltd., Thru. Authorized Signatory Case Reference: 2024:AHC-LKO:68529 The Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench of Justice Subahsh Vidyarthi observed that petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the petitioners to provide a copy of the contract between the parties and the final bill to the claimant, cannot be entertained. In the present case, a petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution was filed against orders passed by an Arbitral Tribunal. Arbitral Award Based On Law Prevailing At Time Of Proceedings Cannot Be Held To Be Illegal Due To Subsequent Apex Court Ruling: Allahabad HC Case Title: Vivek Nayak (Died) And Another v. The Arbitrator / Collector Aligarh And 3 Others Case Reference: 2024:AHC:165809 The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, held that if parties were allowed to reopen concluded arbitrations based on new judicial rulings, it would lead to a flood of claims seeking to modify or overturn arbitral awards. Moreover, the retroactive application of judicial decisions to arbitral awards would create legal and procedural chaos. Arbitrators make decisions based on the legal framework and precedents available at the time of the arbitration. Expecting them to foresee and apply future judicial decisions is unreasonable and impractical. Article 227 Is A Constitutional Provision Which Remains Untouched By Non-Obstante Clause Of S. 5 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad HC Case Title: - Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal v. Sudhir Mohan Agrawal Case Reference: 2024:AHC:162344 The Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these circumstances,...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: October 2024

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags