Supreme Court: 'Every Arbitrator May Not Be Legally Trained, Some Decisions Are Based On Equity' : Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Judicial Interference In Arbitral Awards Case Title: Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, has held that...
Supreme Court:
Case Title: Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, has held that while setting aside an arbitral award for being violative of Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it must be considered that the Arbitrator is empowered to interpret the contract terms reasonably.
High Courts:
Andhra Pradesh High Court:
Case Title: Obulapuram Mining Company vs R.K. Mining Pvt Ltd
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that an execution petition for an arbitration award can only lie before the designated Commercial Courts and no other Court viz., Civil/District Court can entertain such an application.
Delhi High Court:
Case Title: DD Global Capital vs SE Investment Ltd
The High Court of Delhi has held that when earlier loan agreement liabilities are transferred through an agreement, the subsequent loan agreements' arbitration clauses become binding on the parties.
Case Title: JRA Infratech vs Engineering Projects (India) Ltd
The High Court of Delhi has reiterated that a question as to whether the arbitration agreement is vitiated by fraud should be left to the wisdom of the arbitrator who will be free to decide the same on the basis of the evidence and the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act should not get into such a finding.
Case Title: Vivek Khanna vs OYO Apartments Investment
The High Court of Delhi has held that the sum agreed by the parties as liquidated damages would not dispense with the requirement of proof by the party claiming liquidated damages that it actually suffered a loss. The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that a sum ascertained as liquidated damages in the contract is not in the nature of penalty, but is a pre-estimate of loss estimated by parties to be likely suffered in the event of breach of contract.
Madras High Court:
Case Title: EDAC Engineering vs Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd
The High Court of Madras has held that once a party has unconditionally accepted the fees fixed by the arbitral tribunal during the arbitral proceeding, it cannot later challenge the fees of the arbitral tribunal by filing a petition under Section 39(2) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: EDAC Engineering vs Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd
The High Court of Madras has held that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not affect the payment of fees to the arbitrator for the award passed before the moratorium was declared.
Case Title: EDAC Engineering vs Industrial Fans (India) Pvt Ltd
The High Court of Madras has held that the fees to arbitrator has to be treated on parity with the fees of the liquidator and must be given a preferential status in terms of priority of dues.