Arbitration Monthly Digest: August 2023

Supreme Court: Court Has No Power To Modify Award Under S. 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court Case Title: Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company vs Union of India The Supreme Court reiterated that a court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has no power to modify an arbitration award. The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act, permits the court to interfere with an award, sans the grounds of patent illegality, the bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta said. Arbitration Award Cannot Be Set Aside On Mere Possibility Of An Alternative View On Facts Or Interpretation Of Contract: Supreme Court Case Title: Konkan Railway Corporation Limited vs Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking The Supreme Court observed that Arbitration awards cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract. The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is exercised only to see if the Arbitral Tribunal’s view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said. Supreme Court Restores 1997 Arbitral Award Passed Under 1940 Act; Criticises HC & Trial Court For “Appellate Review” Case Title: M/s S.D. Shinde vs Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. The Supreme Court, while restoring an arbitral award passed in 1997 which was set aside by the Trial Court and the High Court under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, has emphasised that the court’s jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act never extended beyond discerning whether the award discloses an “error apparent on the face of the award” or not. Dissenting Opinion Of An Arbitrator Cannot Be Treated As An Award If The Majority Award Is Set Aside : Supreme Court Case Title: Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs National Highways Authority of India The Supreme Court held that a dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside. In this case, a three member arbitration tribunal passed an award in a dispute between Hindustan Construction Company Limited and National Highways Authority of India. High Courts: Allahabad High Court: ‘Such Dead Claim Ought Not To Be Revived’: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application For Appointment Of Arbitrator Filed After 20 Yrs Case Title: Gurucharan Das vs Tribhuvan Pal & Ors. The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an application for the appointment of an arbitrator filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 holding that such application being filed after 20 years of occurrence of dispute is barred by delay and laches. Intention To Arbitrate Can Be Derived From Agreement Clauses Read With Letters Exchanged Between Parties: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Anand Agarwal and Anr. vs Dr. Narendra Malhotra and Anr. The Allahabad High Court has held that the intent of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration can be derived from the clauses of their agreement read along with the letters exchanged between them. Section 11 Application Not Maintainable If Objection To Jurisdiction Of Arbitrator Rejected By Arbitral Tribunal: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (Puvvnl) vs M/S Prabha Mvomni (Jv) The Allahabad High Court has recently held that to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, once the same has been rejected by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party has to challenge the final award. Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the High Court is not maintainable to that effect. Bombay High Court: Time Limit For Passing Award Under S. 29A Of Arbitration Act A Non-Derogable Provision, S.4 Of The Act Has No Application: Bombay High Court Case Title: Mahaveer Realities & Ors. vs Shirish J. Shah The Bombay High Court has ruled that even though the parties had participated in the arbitral proceedings continued by the Arbitrator after his mandate had expired, the same cannot amount to a waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The court remarked that Section 29A of the A&C Act that provides the time limit for passing the award, is a non-derogable provision and thus, Section 4 of the Act has no application. Court Can Within The Limited Scope Of Judicial Scrutiny Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act, Examine If Claims Are Frivolous Or Meritless: Bombay High Court Case Title: 22Light vs OESPL Pvt Ltd The High Court of Bombay has held that despite the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the A&C Act, the Court would refuse to appoint the arbitrator when on a prima facie scrutiny of the material on record, it can come to a conclusion that claims sought to be arbitrated are...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: August 2023

ausaf ayyub

Tags