Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When the Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of disputes between parties, there is the pernicious possibility of any observation being made by the Court influencing the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal”
“Consequent on introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the Supreme Court has in several decisions held that the jurisdiction of the referral Court is now circumscribed.”
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers Courts to extend mandate of arbitral tribunals beyond the specified limitation.
The Delhi High Court said that the petitioner had no prima facie right, title, and interest in the allotted units, and a case was not made out to restrain the respondents from creating any third-party interest.
“The abandonment of the claim can be either express or implied. The abandonment cannot be readily inferred. There is an implied abandonment when admitted or proved facts are so clinching that the only inference which can be drawn is of the abandonment.”
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(14) & Expln. thereto [as they stood prior to the 2019 Amendment Act], 31(8), 31-A,
“When a Coordinate Bench issues a judgment on a particular legal issue, that judgment becomes binding precedent for subsequent cases involving a similar issue before another Coordinate Bench”
“The Court’s jurisdiction at the pre-reference stage is only to determine the prime facie existence of an arbitration agreement and the final adjudication, even on the question of limitation, is to be left to the arbitral tribunal, being the parties’ chosen forum.”
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
“When no opportunity is given to deal with an argument which goes to the root of the case based on evidence which go behind the back of the party and results in a denial of justice to the prejudice of the party, the same would amount to violation of principle of natural justice.”
Supreme Court has applied the standard of a ‘grave miscarriage of justice’ in the exceptional circumstances of this case where the process of arbitration has been perverted by the arbitral tribunal to provide an undeserved windfall to DAMEPL.
by Justice Hemant Gupta (Retd.)*
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 28
by Vasant Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 26
“Prima facie, Respondents 3-5 are a veritable party to the loan agreement as they are connected with the loan documents and form part of the loan transaction.”
Supreme Court, while allowing the present petition, appointed Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to act as the sole arbitrator.
“The purpose of Sections 17 and 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, gives the right to a micro, small and medium enterprise to have its disputes adjudicated by approaching the facilitation councils and it cannot be obliterated on account of any other contract to the contrary.”
The interpretation of the term other authority has evolved over a period of time where the judicial dictum, at various instances has decided for inclusion or exclusion of various authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
