Supreme Court Judgements On Arbitration In 2023

Starting Point Of Limitation U/ Section 34(3) Arbitration Act In Cases Of Suo Motu Correction Of Award: Supreme Court ExplainsThe Supreme Court observed that the starting point for the limitation under Section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in case of suo moto correction of the award, would be the date on which the correction was made and the corrected award is received by the party.Once the arbitral award has been amended or corrected, it is the corrected award which has to be challenged and not the original award, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M M Sundresh observed. USS Alliance versus State of Uttar Pradesh 023 LiveLaw (SC) 20 12 Months Time Limit Under Section 29A Arbitration Act Not Applicable To International Commercial Arbitration: Supreme Court The Supreme Court has held that the time limit of twelve months as prescribed in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable for international commercial arbitration."In terms of the amended provisions of Section 29A, arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are only expected to make an endeavor to complete the proceedings within twelve months from the date of competition of pleadings and are not bound to abide by the time limit prescribed for domestic arbitrations.", the bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha observed. TATA Sons Pvt Ltd versus Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 39 Limited Scrutiny of Court Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act Through The “Eye Of The Needle”, Is Necessary And Compelling: Supreme CourtThe 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. The Court reiterated if this duty within the limited compass is not exercised, and the Court becomes too reluctant to intervene, it may undermine the effectiveness of both the arbitration and the court. NTPC Ltd vs. M/s SPML Infra Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 287 Arbitration | Section 34 Application Must Be Filed Within 90 Days Limitation To Claim Exclusion Of Period When Court Remain Closed: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has held that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed within the “prescribed period” of limitation i.e. 90 days, for seeking the benefit of exclusion of the period during which the Court remained closed from computation of limitation period. If the application is filed by invoking Proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, which extends the limitation period to a further 30 days at the Court's discretion, then the benefit of such exclusion would not be available to the applicant. The Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari further held that the Proviso to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, specifically excludes the application of Section 10 to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (now Limitation Act, 1963) applies. Since the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to arbitration proceedings, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act cannot be pressed into service to seek condonation of delay in filing of application on the ground that the last day of the condonable period falls on a Court holiday. Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. (WIL) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 288Referral Court Has Duty To Conclusively Decide Issue Of 'Existence & Validity Of Arbitration Agreement' Raised At Pre-Referral Stage: Supreme Court The Supreme Court has held that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the issue of 'existence and validity of an arbitration agreement' is raised at the pre-referral stage, then the Court is duty bound to conclusively decide the issue. If the issue regarding the 'existence and validity of an arbitration agreement' is left to the Arbitral Tribunal, then it will be contrary to Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act. This is to protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement. The Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar has observed that the 'pre-referral' jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 consists of two inquiries, (i) existence and validity of the arbitration agreement; and (ii) non-arbitrability of dispute. Magic Eye Developers Pvt....

Supreme Court Judgements On Arbitration In 2023

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags