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

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 Inc. (2013) 1 SCC 641 and subsequent judgments are valid in law? - Issues referred to a larger bench. Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 455 : 2022 (7) SCALE 531

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Arbitration application decided and disposed of after a period of four years by Telangana High Court - Very sorry state of affairs - Registrar General of the High Court directed to submit a detailed report/statement pointing out how many Section 11 applications are pending before the High Court and from which year. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - The arbitration applications for appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be frustrated. (Para 2) Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - While dealing with petition under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non arbitrability are plainly arguable. In such case, the issue of non arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. (Para 11) Mohammed Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 120 : AIR 2022 SC 1126 : (2022) 4 SCC 156

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(5) - Even in the absence of any arbitration agreement in writing between the parties, with consent the parties may refer the dispute for arbitration and appoint a sole arbitrator/arbitrators by mutual consent and parties may agree mutually on a procedure for appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators even in the absence of any written agreement. (Para 7.2) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454 : AIR 2022 SC 2193

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(5), 11(6) - Delay in appointment of arbitrators - If the arbitrators are not appointed at the earliest and the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act are kept pending for a number of years, it will defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Arbitration Act and it may lose the significance of an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If the Commercial disputes are not resolved at the earliest, not only it would affect the commercial relations between the parties but it would also affect economy of the country. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(5), 11(6) - Directions issued to High Courts to dispose pending applications within 6 months - Ensure that all pending applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and/or any other applications either for substitution of arbitrator and/or change of arbitrator, which are pending for more than one year from the date of filing, must be decided within six months from today. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - A party to the arbitration agreement can appoint an arbitrator even after an Arbitration Petition has been filed by the other party before the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator if the party has not been given due notice of the same. (Para 16) Durga Welding Works v. Chief Engineer, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 9 : (2022) 3 SCC 98

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - An application under section 11(6) shall be maintainable only in a case where there is a contract between the parties containing the arbitration agreement and the appointment procedure is prescribed and is agreed upon in writing. (Para 6.2) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454 : AIR 2022 SC 2193

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) and 2(1)(e) - An application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in any High Court in India, irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction. Section 11(6) of the A&C Act has to be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act and construed to mean, a High Court which exercises superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6),14(1)(a) - Once the arbitrator was appointed by mutual consent and it was alleged that the mandate of the sole arbitrator stood terminated in view of section 14(1)(a), the application under section 11(6) to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator in view of section 14(1)(a) shall not be maintainable - The aggrieved party has to approach the concerned "court" as per sub­section (2) of section 14 of the Act. (Para 8) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454 : AIR 2022 SC 2193

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule - An arbitral tribunal constituted as per an arbitration clause before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will lose its mandate if it violates the neutrality clause under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule, which were incorporated through the 2015 amendment. (Para 8, 9) Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 8 : (2022) 3 SCC 1

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 12, 14(1)(a), 15(1)(a) - If the challenge to the arbitrator is made on any of the grounds mentioned in section 12 of the Act, the party aggrieved has to submit an appropriate application before the Arbitral Tribunal itself - Whenever there is a dispute and/or controversy that the mandate of the arbitrator is to be terminated on the grounds mentioned in section 14(1)(a), such a controversy/dispute has to be raised before the concerned "court" only and after the decision by the concerned "court" as defined under section 2(e) and ultimately it is held that the mandate of the arbitrator is terminated, thereafter, the arbitrator is to be substituted accordingly, that too, according to the rules that were applicable to the initial appointment of the arbitrator - So far as the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator and/or termination of the proceedings mentioned in other provisions like in section 15(1)(a) where he withdraws from office for any reason; or (b) by or pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the dispute need not be raised before the concerned court -The same procedure is required to be followed which was followed at the time of appointment of the sole arbitrator whose mandate is terminated and/or who is replaced. (Para 6.7) Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454 : AIR 2022 SC 2193

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 16 - Party taking the plea of absence of jurisdiction is required to establish the grounds on which it set about to establish its plea. (Para 49) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ; Section 16, 34, 37 - An appeal lies to the Court from the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction - Parliament has not specifically constricted the powers of the court while considering an appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 37 by the grounds on which an award can be challenged under Section 34 - In the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, the court must have due deference to the grounds which have weighed with the tribunal in holding that it lacks jurisdiction having regard to the object and spirit underlying the statute which entrusts the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction - The decision of the tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction is not conclusive because it is subject to an appellate remedy under Section 37(2)(a). However, in the exercise of this appellate power, the court must be mindful of the fact that the statute has entrusted the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction with the purpose of facilitating the efficacy of arbitration as an institutional mechanism for the resolution of disputes. (Para 34 - 39) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 17 - Appeal against Delhi HC order which confirmed the interim order passed by Arbitral Tribunal directing the appellant to deposit the rental amount from March, 2020 onwards and up to December, 2021 - Partly allowed - No order could have been passed by the Tribunal by way of interim measure on the applications filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act in a case where there is a serious dispute with respect to the liability of the rental amounts to be paid, which is yet to be adjudicated upon and/or considered by the Arbitral Tribunal - The appellant will therefore have to deposit the entire rental amount except the period for which there was complete closure due to lockdown. Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson and Company Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389 : AIR 2022 SC 1930

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16 - Group of companies doctrine - An arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties - A non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory - In deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors: (i) The mutual intent of the parties; (ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement; (iii) The commonality of the subject matter; (iv) The composite nature of the transaction; and (v) The performance of the contract. (Para 18, 23, 26) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 : AIR 2022 SC 2080

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 20 - The appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional 'seat' already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator. The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held - Once the jurisdictional 'seat' of arbitration is fixed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, then, without the express mutual consent of the parties to the arbitration, 'the seat' cannot be changed. (Para 29) BBR (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.P. Singla Constructions, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 493 : AIR 2022 SC 2673

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31 - Post-award interest can be granted by an Arbitrator on the interest amount awarded. (Para 4-6) UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18 : (2022) 4 SCC 116

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7) - Arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on the sum of the award which also includes the interest component - The word sum used under Section 31(7) includes the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would be on both the amount awarded in respect of the substantive claims and the interest awarded on such claims. Indian Oil Corporation v. U.B. Engineering, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 409

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7)(a) - If there is an agreement between the parties to the contrary, the Arbitral Tribunal would lose its discretion to award interest and will have to be guided by the agreement between the parties - In the absence of such an agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal would have a discretion to exercise its powers under clause (a) of sub­section (7) of Section 31- The discretion is wide enough. (Para 14-18) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452 : AIR 2022 SC 2165

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - An error in interpretation of a contract in a case where there is valid and lawful submission of arbitral disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal is an error within jurisdiction. (Para 45) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : (2022) 4 SCC 463

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Appeal against Punjab & Haryana HC order which allowed to proceed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount - Order passed by the High Court permitting the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre­deposit of 75% of the awarded amount is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383 : AIR 2022 SC 1939

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Arbitral award can be set aside by the court if the court finds the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award - The award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by misappreciation of evidence. (Para 15) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348 : (2022) 5 SCC 432

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Limitation Act, 1961; Section 5 - Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Act 1996. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 5 : (2022) 4 SCC 162

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Patent Illegality - An Arbitral Tribunal being a creature of contract, is bound to act in terms of the contract under which it is constituted. An award can be said to be patently illegal where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to act in terms of the contract or has ignored the specific terms of a contract. (Para 44) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : (2022) 4 SCC 463

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The Court does not sit in appeal over the award made by an Arbitral Tribunal. The Court does not ordinarily interfere with interpretation made by the Arbitral Tribunal of a contractual provision, unless such interpretation is patently unreasonable or perverse. Where a contractual provision is ambiguous or is capable of being interpreted in more ways than one, the Court cannot interfere with the arbitral award, only because the Court is of the opinion that another possible interpretation would have been a better one. (Para 46) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121 : (2022) 4 SCC 463

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The court may condone delay of a period up to thirty days in filing of the objections if it is satisfied that the applicant is prevented by sufficient cause from making an application under Section 34(1) of the Act. (Para 10) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348 : (2022) 5 SCC 432

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The principle that a court while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the Arbitrator for a fresh decision would be applicable where the Appellate Court decides the application under Section 34 of the Act on merits - Even in a case where the award is set aside under Section 34 of the Act on whatever the grounds which may be available under Section 34 of the Act, in that case the parties can still agree for the fresh arbitration may be by the same arbitrator - When both the parties agreed to set aside the award and to remit the matter to the learned Sole Arbitrator for fresh reasoned Award, it is not open to contend that the matter may not be and/or ought not to have been remanded to the same sole arbitrator. (Para 8) Mutha Construction v. Strategic Brand Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 163

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - A harmonious reading of Section 31, 34(1), 34(2A) and 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, make it clear that in appropriate cases, on the request made by a party, Court can give an opportunity to the arbitrator to resume the arbitral proceedings for giving reasons or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning in support of a finding, which is already rendered in the award. But at the same time, when it prima facie appears that there is a patent illegality in the award itself, by not recording a finding on a contentious issue, in such cases, Court may not accede to the request of a party for giving an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2022 SC 301 : (2022) 3 SCC 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - If there are no findings on the contentious issues in the award or if any findings are recorded ignoring the material evidence on record, the same are acceptable grounds for setting aside the award itself. Under guise of either additional reasons or filling up the gaps in the reasoning, the power conferred on the Court cannot be relegated to the Arbitrator. In absence of any finding on contentious issue, no amount of reasons can cure the defect in the award. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2022 SC 301 : (2022) 3 SCC 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - Merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal. The discretionary power conferred under Section 34(4) of the Act, is to be exercised where there is inadequate reasoning or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning, in support of the findings which are already recorded in the award. Under guise of additional reasons and filling up the gaps in the reasoning, no award can be remitted to the Arbitrator, where there are no findings on the contentious issues in the award. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2022 SC 301 : (2022) 3 SCC 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34(4) - The discretion vested with the Court for remitting the matter to Arbitral Tribunal to give an opportunity to resume the proceedings or not. The words "where it is appropriate" itself indicate that it is the discretion to be exercised by the Court, to remit the matter when requested by a party. When application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act, the same is to be considered keeping in mind the grounds raised in the application under Section 34(1) of the Act by the party, who has questioned the award of the Arbitral Tribunal and the grounds raised in the application filed under Section 34(4) of the Act and the reply thereto. (Para 21) I-Pay Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2022 SC 301 : (2022) 3 SCC 121

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - An award can be set aside only if the award is against the public policy of India. The award can be set aside under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration Act, if the award is found to be contrary to, (a) fundamental policy of Indian Law; or (b) the interest of India; or (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal - High Court cannot enter into the merits of the claim in an appeal under Section 37. (Para 8) Haryana Tourism Ltd. v. Kandhari Beverages Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 38 : (2022) 3 SCC 237

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - Reference to wrong provision, as long as power exists would not matter. Premier Sea Foods v. Caravel Shipping Services, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 54

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, 37 - The jurisdiction conferred on Courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is fairly narrow, when it comes to the scope of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is all the more circumscribed - if there are two plausible interpretations of the terms and conditions of the contract, then no fault can be found, if the learned Arbitrator proceeds to accept one interpretation as against the other. (Para 15-21) UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18 : (2022) 4 SCC 116

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 37 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 37 - Limitation Act, 1963; Section 3, 5 - The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The usual explanation of red tapism, pushing of files and the rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient cause - A different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved. (Para 17) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 37 - The High Court has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the same Arbitrator unless it is consented by both the parties that the matter be remanded to the same Arbitrator -The High Court either may relegate the parties for fresh arbitration or to consider the appeal on merits on the basis of the material available on record within the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction under Section 37. (Para 3) Dr. A. Parthasarathy v. E Springs Avenues Pvt. Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 199

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 - The Section has obviously been enacted to prevent the parties from being dragged into proceedings in different Courts, when more than one Court has jurisdiction. Where with respect to any arbitration agreement, any application under Part I of the A&C Act has been made in a Court, that Court alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement, and the arbitral proceedings, would have to be made in that Court and in no other Court, unless, of course, the Court in which the first application had been instituted, inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain that application. The Section which starts with a non obstante clause, is binding irrespective of any other law for the time being in force, and irrespective of any other provision in Part I of the A&C Act. (Para 31) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 and 11(6) - Section 42 cannot possibly have any application to an application under Section 11(6), which necessarily has to be made before a High Court, unless the earlier application was also made in a High Court. (Para 32) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 : 2022 (5) SCALE 372

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXVI Rule 11 - Arbitration Act, 1940; Section 21 - Distinction between the scope and functions of an arbitral tribunal and a commissioner - For submission to arbitration, there must be an arbitration agreement or an agreement in terms of Section 21 of the Act that the difference or dispute between the parties for which they intend to be determined in a quasi-judicial manner. Commissioners are appointed by the court. Appointment may be with consent of the parties, or even when there is objection to the appointment. Preexisting agreement or the requirement that the parties agree before the court, as is mandatory in case of arbitration, is not necessary when a court directs appointment of a commissioner. In the case of a reference to a commissioner, all that the parties expect from the commissioner is a valuation/ examination of the subject matter referred, which he would do according to his skill, knowledge and experience, which may be without taking any evidence or hearing argument. (Para 32) M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit v. Modi Transport Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Entry 13 of List III of Seventh Schedule - The subject of arbitration is in the Concurrent List, the State can also make a law with regard to the same. The only requirement is that to validate such a law, it is necessary to reserve the same for consideration of the President of India and obtain his assent. When such an assent is obtained, the provisions of the State Law or Act so enacted would prevail in the State concerned, notwithstanding its repugnancy with an earlier Parliamentary enactment made on the subject. (Para 62, 127(i)) Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department v. James Varghese, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 7B - Existence of an arbitral remedy under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum - It would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration, but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the Act of 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019. (Para 16, 20) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221 : (2022) 4 SCC 463

Covid-19 - Extension of Limitation - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 23(4), 29A - Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 12A - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. (Para 5) In Re Cognizance for extension of Limitation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31 : (2022) 3 SCC 117

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006; Section 19 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is a mandatory requirement to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. (Para 4) Tirupati Steels v. Shubh Industrial Component, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383 : AIR 2022 SC 1939