Decoding Arbitrability and Determining the Boundaries of Arbitration in Indian Jurisprudence
by Vasanth Rajasekaran†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 57
Arbitral Tribunal
Necessity of Stamping of Arbitration Agreements: Is the Conundrum Solved?
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Megha Saha††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 41
[Section 34 of Arbitration Act] A well-reasoned arbitral award cannot be interfered with: Delhi High Court
The Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of Contract, and the Contract is the only basis on which the Learned Tribunal should adjudicate, apart from the general provisions of law and jurisprudence.
Agreement specifying ‘no interest to be granted’ takes away Arbitrator’s power to deviate and grant his own interest rate: Delhi High Court
Even if the Arbitrator is successful in justifying his reasons for deciding a rate of interest, the Agreement between the parties being the birth-giver, should be held at a higher stature when it concerns an issue that has been pre-decided and mutually agreed upon by the parties.
“Unless the foreign award contravenes a fundamental and non-derogable principle or core value, refusal to recognise is not warranted”: Madras High Court
The High Court of Madras recognised the foreign arbitration award pronounced by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC’) and found that the respondents have failed to establish any ground for refusing the recognition of foreign award.
Supreme Court| Pre-amended Section 34(2)(a) shall be applicable on arbitration proceedings commenced and concluded prior to amendment of 2019
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
In Conversation with Claudia Salomon, President ICC, International Court of Arbitration
Interviewed by Bhumika Indulia
Delhi High Court | Challenge to the mandate of the arbitrator on the ground of bias and impartiality cannot be raised under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in the Union Government had instituted proceedings under Sections 14(2) read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) for a declaration that the majority of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal were de jure/de facto unable to discharge their functions and consequently their mandate stands terminated in terms of Section 14 of the Act.
Explained| Three types of issues that can be considered in an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Telangana High Court, wherein the High Court dismissed the application
Madras High Court | Courts will not interfere or set aside an arbitral award, merely because an alternative view is possible; Adopt a hands-off approach
Madras High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed against the order of the single judge, whereby, the judge allowed the
Delhi High Court set aside arbitral award as it suffers from patent illegalities, and fraud and conflicts with the Public Policy of India
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore | Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal is only revived to the extent of the remission ordered
“Apart from the remission ordered, there is no basis on which a party in CKH’s position or the Tribunal itself can seek to re-open or expand the subject matter of the award or arbitration.”
Del HC | Commercial wisdom of the parties in an agreement not to be revisited; arbitral tribunal cannot re-work the terms owing to commercial difficulties of one party
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J. while hearing an application against award of an arbitral tribunal has held that it would not
Can mere filing of proceedings under S. 7 IBC be treated as an embargo on Court exercising jurisdiction under S. 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act? Bom HC explains
Bombay High Court: A very interesting question was considered by G.S. Kulkarni, J., the question being, whether mere filing of a proceeding
Scope of examination under S. 11 of A&C Act is confined to existence of arbitration agreement or does it extend to adjudicating nature of contract as well? Del HC addresses
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., held that whether claims are barred by limitation is a mixed question of fact and law
Whether an award passed under S. 34(4) of the A&C Act is a fresh award for the purpose of S. 34 of the Act? Del HC answers
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., allowed an amendment application seeking amendment of a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Supreme Court clarifies interplay between S. 55 and S. 74 of Contract Act in Welspun v ONGC
by Hiroo Advani†, Sheikh Yusuf Ali†† and Manav Nagpal †††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 18
Bombay HC rejects argument that a dispute cannot be referred for arbitration on account of fraud: Read why
Bombay High Court: B.P. Colabawalla, J., addressed an arbitration application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Instant