Annual Digest of Arbitration Cases 2023- Supreme Court And High Courts (Part-1)

Supreme Court Arbitration Clauses In Unstamped Agreements Enforceable : Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench Overrules 'NN Global' Decision Case Title: In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899 Curative Pet(C) No. 44/2023 In R.P.(C) No. 704/2021 In C.A. No. 1599/2020 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1049 A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 13) ruled that arbitration clauses in unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements are enforceable. Insufficiency of stamping does not make the agreement void or unenforceable but makes it inadmissible in evidence. However, it is a curable defect as per the Indian Stamp Act, the Court pointed out. The Court overruled the judgment rendered by a 5-judge bench in April this year in M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors which had by a 3:2 majority held that unstamped arbitration agreements are not enforceable. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra passed the judgement in the case In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899. Arbitration Agreement Can Bind Non-Signatories: Supreme Court Upholds 'Group Of Companies' Doctrine Case: Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd | ARBIT. PETITION No. 38/2020 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042 A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 6) held that an arbitration agreement can bind non-signatories as per the "group of companies" doctrine. "The 'group of companies' doctrine must be retained in the Indian arbitration jurisprudence considering its utility in determining the intention of the parties in the context of complex transactions involving multiple parties and multiple agreements," the Court observed. Principle Of 'Alter Ego' Or 'Piercing Corporate Veil' Not The Basis For 'Group Of Companies' Doctrine : Supreme Court Case: Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd | ARBIT. PETITION No. 38/2020 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1042 While approving the 'group of companies' doctrine in the arbitration law jurisprudence, the Supreme Court clarified that the principle of "alter ego" or "piercing the corporate veil" cannot be the basis for applying this doctrine. The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was answering a reference which doubted the "group of companies" doctrine which allows non-signatory companies to be bound by arbitration agreement. Arbitration Agreement In Unstamped Contract Which Is Exigible To Stamp Duty Not Enforceable: Supreme Court Holds By 3:2 Majority Case Title: M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd vs M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd & Ors A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, answered the reference, which pertains to the issue - whether the arbitration clause in a contract, which is required to be registered and stamped, but is not registered and stamped, is valid and enforceable. A 5-Judge Bench, comprising Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice C.T. Ravikumar decided the issue by 3:2 majority. Justice Joseph in concurrence with Justice Bose and Justice Ravikumar decided that "an instrument which is exigible to stamp duty may contain an arbitration clause and which is not stamped cannot be said to be a contract enforceable in law within the meaning of S. 2(h) of the Contract Act and is not enforceable under S 2(g) of the Contract Act”. Limited Scrutiny of Court Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act Through The “Eye Of The Needle”, Is Necessary And Compelling: Supreme Court Case Title: NTPC Ltd vs M/s SPML Infra Ltd The Supreme Court has ruled that the court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is not expected to act mechanically, and that the limited scrutiny of the court at the pre-reference stage, through the “eye of the needle”, is necessary and compelling. The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha remarked that the same is intertwined with the duty of the referral court to protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when the matter is demonstrably non-arbitrable, adding that same is a legitimate interference by courts to refuse reference in order to prevent wastage of public and private resources. Arbitration | Section 34 Application Must Be Filed Within 90 Days Limitation To Claim Exclusion Of Period When Court Remain Closed: Supreme Court Case Title: Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane...

Annual Digest of Arbitration Cases 2023- Supreme Court And High Courts (Part-1)

ausaf ayyub

Tags