Arbitration
De-Jure Ineligibility To Act As Arbitrator U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act Can Be Waived Only By Express Agreement In Writing: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta affirmed that de jure ineligibility to act as an arbitrator can only be waived, after dispute having arisen, by the parties by an express agreement in writing under proviso to section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act. The court further observed that this waiver is different from section 4 of the Act which can be waived even by...
Award Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If View Taken By Arbitrator Is A Plausible View: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that conduct of the parties has to be seen before granting equitable relief for specific performance of the contract. If the conduct of the parties does not demonstrate that the party claiming relief is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract then the relief under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted. The...
Inordinate, Unexplained Delay In Passing Award After Conclusion Of Arguments Can Be Ground To Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing an award from the date of the conclusion of the pleadings can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this case, the award was passed after more than 2 years from the conclusion of the arguments. Brief Facts The present petition under Section...
Scope Of Review U/S 37 Is Limited To Ascertaining Compliance With S. 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Saurabh Banerjee affirmed that the Court under section 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision Brief Facts The present appeal under Section 37 (1)...
Award In Which Vital Evidence Are Not Considered Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality U/S 34: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya affirmed that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that if there is a perversity in the award insofar as the non-consideration of vital evidence is concerned, the same tantamounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian Law as well as gives rise to a patent illegality, which is a sufficient ground...
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...
Plea Of Limitation Shall Be Deemed To Be Waived If Not Raised Before Arbitrator U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that plea of limitation cannot be allowed to be raised first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act if no such plea was taken before the Arbitrator under section 16 of the Act. The court further observed that it shall be deemed to have been waived as per section 4 of the Act. Brief Facts This...
Arbitration Monthly Digest: October 2024
Supreme Court Arbitral Award Must Carry Post-Award Interest As Per S. 31(7)(b) : Supreme Court Case Title: R.P. GARG VERSUS THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10472 OF 2024 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 794 The Supreme Court held that the post-award period shall carry a rate of interest decided as per Section 31(7)(b) of...
Analysing Jurisprudence On Extension Of Arbitrator's Mandate After Expiry Of Period U/S 29A Of A&C Act Before & After SC's Decision In Rohan Builders
IntroductionSection 29A was introduced into the Arbitration Act in 2015 to provide a clear-cut timeline within which an arbitral tribunal has to render an award. It provides that the mandate of the tribunal shall terminate if the award is not rendered within 12 months or a further extended period of 6 months as consented to by the parties. If the award is not rendered within that time period,...
Determining 'Seat' In International Arbitration : Supreme Court Takes Shift From 'Closest Connection Test', Says Express Designation Of Place Matters
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...
Telangana High Court Reiterates Limited Scope For Interference With Arbitral Awards U/S 34 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
The Telangana High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao has held that an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, restraining the encashment of a bank guarantee does not warrant interference under section 34 of the Act. The court also held that section 34 does not permit the...