Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest [2022] On Arbitration With Parallel Citations

Arbitration - Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 (Kerala) - The Act is liable to be held unconstitutional on the ground of encroachment upon the judicial powers of the State - The Act has the effect of annulling the awards which have become "Rules of Court", is a transgression on the judicial functions of the State and therefore, violative of doctrine of "separation of powers". (Para 122, 127(iii)) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447 Arbitration Act, 1940 - The powers exercised by the court under the provisions of the 1940 Act are judicial powers and that the power to make an award "Rule of Court" is not a mechanical power. (Para 127 (ii), 113) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447 Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 21 - The word 'agree' in Section 21 of the Act refers to consensus ad idem between the parties who take a considered decision to forego their right of adjudication before a court where the suit is pending, and mutually agree to have the subject matter of the suit or part thereof adjudicated and decided by an arbitrator. (Para 17) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471 Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 30, 33 - Scope of interference by courts - A Court does not sit in appeal over an Award passed by an Arbitrator and the only grounds on which it can be challenged are those that have been specified in Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, namely, when there is an error on the face of the Award or when the learned Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings. (Para 10-15) Atlanta Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63 : (2022) 3 SCC 739 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which dismissed appeal against interim award of the Arbitral tribunal holding that JDIL was not a party to the arbitration agreement and must be deleted from the array of parties - Allowed - The interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal stands vitiated because of: (i) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to decide upon the application for discovery and inspection filed by ONGC; (ii) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to determine the legal foundation for the application of the group of companies doctrine; and (iii) The decision of the arbitral tribunal that it would decide upon the applications filed by ONGC only after the plea of jurisdiction was disposed of. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Only if the agreement of the parties was construed to provide for seat/place of arbitration in India, would Part-I of the 1996 Act be applicable. If the seat/place were outside India, Part-I would not apply, even though the venue of a few sittings may have been in India, or the cause of action may have arisen in India. (Para 36) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Special leave petition against an order of the Calcutta High Court, allowing an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator - Allowed - Calcutta High Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Jurisdiction - When two or more Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement, the parties might, by agreement, decide to refer all disputes to any one Court to the exclusion of all other Courts, which might otherwise have had jurisdiction to decide the disputes. The parties cannot, however, by consent, confer jurisdiction on a Court which inherently lacked jurisdiction. (Para 47) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Seat and Venue - Sittings at various places are relatable to venue. It cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration or place of arbitration, which has a different connotation. (Para 44, 45) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 8, 11 - Group of Companies Doctrine - There is a clear need for having a relook at the doctrinal ingredients concerning the group of companies doctrine - Whether the phrase 'claiming through or under' in Sections 8 and 11 could be interpreted to include 'Group of Companies' doctrine? Whether the 'Group of companies' doctrine as expounded by Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification ...

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest [2022] On Arbitration With Parallel Citations

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags