Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 4th November To 10th November 2024

Supreme Court 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 appointment of the arbitrator will happen from a panel of arbitrators curated by one of the parties, which is mostly a public sector undertaking (PSU) in majority of the cases. Determining 'Seat' In International Arbitration : Supreme Court Takes Shift From 'Closest Connection Test', Says Express Designation Of Place Matters Case Title: M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. VERSUS M/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE, ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 31 OF 2023 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 871 In a key ruling on International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement grants non-exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign court, that court is considered the "seat of arbitration." The Court reaffirmed the BALCO principle that Indian courts lack supervisory jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for arbitrations seated abroad. Taking a shift from the 'Close Connection Test' to determine the seat of the arbitration, the Court observed that “the more appropriate criterion for determining the seat of arbitration in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court is that where in an arbitration agreement there is an express designation of a place of arbitration anchoring the arbitral proceedings to such place, and there being no other significant contrary indicia to show otherwise, such place would be the 'seat' of arbitration even if it is designated in the nomenclature of 'venue' in the arbitration agreement.” Unconditional Withdrawal Of Arbitrator Appointment Application Bars Second Application On Same Cause Of Action: Supreme Court Case Title: M/S HPCL BIO-FUELS LTD. VERSUS M/S SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12233 OF 2024 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 879 The Supreme Court observed that when a party seeking appointment of an arbitrator unconditionally withdraws its application, then the subsequent application for an appointment of an arbitrator on the same cause of action would be barred. The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala ruled that Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) would be made...

Arbitration Weekly Round-Up: 4th November To 10th November 2024

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags