Fate of Arbitral Tribunal in case of unilateral fee hike: Analysis of Chennai Metro Rail case
by Ravitej Chilumuri†, Mihika Jalan†† and Hanisha Daboo†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 84
Arbitral Tribunal
Approval of Resolution Plan under IBC extinguishes all claims, dispute cannot be urged again before Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi High Court
“The IBC and the resolution process does not contemplate matters being left inchoate. In fact, it exhorts one to accept the seal of finality and quietude which stands attached to the approval of a Resolution Plan.”
Decoding Allahabad High Court verdict on applicability of doctrine of severability on arbitral awards
“Section 34 confers power on the court to set aside an award, the power could be exercised to set aside any or all such awards, whether composite, interim, final or additional”
Delhi High Court| Delay in the handing over of the Right of Way is a material breach of contract if it affects the issuance of the Completion Certificate
The Court is not meant to act as a Court of first appeal and cannot supplant its view over that of the Arbitral Tribunal.
[Project NH-32] Delhi High Court upholds Award of Rs. 36 Crores to be paid by NHAI to Ashoka Buildcon Ltd
“It is essential that there be illegalities or deficiencies at the face of the Award which shocks the conscience of the Court for it to qualify to be set aside by an act of this Court while adjudicating upon a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
Mere use of word ‘arbitration’ or ‘arbitrator’ not enough to construe an agreement to be an arbitration agreement: Delhi High Court
“It is palpably clear that the language of the purported arbitration clause must evidence an unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal intention to refer the disputes to arbitration, leaving no room for doubt that parties chose arbitration as their only mode of resolution of disputes.”
Addressing Asymmetry in Arbitrator Appointments: A Multi-Party Context
by Shruti Sabharwal† and Ujval Mohan††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 65
[SpiceJet v. Kal Airways] Delhi High Court upholds Arbitral Award of Rs. 270 crores; rejects SpiceJet’s plea
“The Tribunal provided reasons for the findings delivered, and there was no perversity apparent on the face of the record or which goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the impugned Award could not be said to be patently illegal.”
Decoding Arbitrability and Determining the Boundaries of Arbitration in Indian Jurisprudence
by Vasanth Rajasekaran†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 57
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