Quarterly Digest Of Arbitration Cases (July-September 2024)

Supreme Court Avoid Bulky Pleadings & Lengthy Submissions In Arbitration Appeals : Supreme Court To Advocates Case Title: Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited Versus Samir Narain Bhojwani Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445 Expressing displeasure over the filing of bulky and lengthy submissions in the arbitral proceedings, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) called upon the Bar to urge only the legally permissible grounds in the arbitration proceedings carried under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “When members of the bar take up so many grounds in petitions under Section 34, which are not covered by Section 34, there is a tendency to urge all those grounds which are not available in law and waste the Court's time. The time of our Courts is precious, considering the huge pendency. This is happening in a large number of cases. All this makes the arbitral procedure inefficient and unfair. It is high time that the members of the Bar show restraint by incorporating only legally permissible grounds in petitions under Section 34 and the appeals under Section 37.”, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal said. S. 4 Limitation Act Can't Be Invoked Using 30-Day Extension For Arbitration Appeals Filed Beyond 3-Months From Award: Supreme Court Case Title – State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 454 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 Act 1963. Arbitration | Referral Courts Must Not Conduct Intricate Enquiry On Whether Claims Are Time-Barred : Supreme Court Clarifies 'Arif Azim' Judgment Case Details: SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KRISH SPINNING Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489 The Supreme Court held that while deciding a Section 11(6) petition for an appointment of an arbitrator, the referral courts must not conduct an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the applicant are time-barred and should leave that question for determination by the arbitrator. The Court said that the referral court should limit its enquiry to examining whether the Section 11(6) application has been filed within the period of limitation of three years or not.Dispute Regarding Full & Final Settlement Of Contract Is Arbitrable : Supreme Court Case Details: SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus KRISH SPINNING Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489 The Supreme Court held that if any dispute arises as to whether a contract has been discharged or not, such a dispute is arbitrable. “Once the contract has been discharged by performance, neither any right to seek performance, nor any obligation to perform remains under it.However, whether there has been a discharge of contract or not is a mixed question of law and fact, and if any dispute arises as to whether a contract has been discharged or not, such a dispute is arbitrable as per the mechanism prescribed under the arbitration agreement contained in the underlying contract.”, the Court said. Proceedings For Cheque Dishonour U/s. 138 NI Act Do Not Constitute Continuing Cause Of Action To Initiate Arbitration: Supreme Court Case Title – Elfit Arabia & Anr v. Concept Hotel BARONS Limited & Ors Citaiton : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 494 The Supreme Court recently observed that initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for cheque dishonour does not constitute continuing cause of action for initiating arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra dismissed an arbitration petition seeking the appointment of an arbitrator eleven years after cheques were dishonoured, on the ground that the claims were barred by limitation. Arbitration | Impermissible For Arbitral Tribunal Or Courts To Grant Interest Upon Interest Under 1940 Act : Supreme Court Case Details: M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.812 OF 2014 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 558 The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an Arbitral Tribunal is not empowered to grant interest upon interest while passing an arbitral award as the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not specifically provide for the grant of interest on interest. In the light of the above legal provisions and the case law on the subject, it is evident that ordinarily courts are not supposed to grant interest on interest except where it has been specifically...

Quarterly Digest Of Arbitration Cases (July-September 2024)

Mohd Talha Hasan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Quarterly Digest Of Arbitration Cases (July-September 2024)

Mohd Talha Hasan

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers