In Conversation with Claudia Salomon, President ICC, International Court of Arbitration
Interviewed by Bhumika Indulia
Arbitral Tribunal
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
Whether Preconditions to Arbitration are a Matter of Jurisdiction/Admissibility
by Hiroo Advani†, Asif Lampwala†† and Kenneth Martin†††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 10
Does Arbitral Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to “works contract” in State of Madhya Pradesh under the scheme of M.P Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983? MP HC explains
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ., while holding that M.P Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam,
The Subtle Art of Interfering: Amazon-Future Retail “Anti-Arbitration” Injunction Saga
by Shashank Garg* and Aakanksha Kaul**
Amazon v. Future | ‘Stay’ on proceedings before Singapore Tribunal; Prima Facie case in favour of Future Group
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and Jyoti Singh, J., stayed the arbitration proceeding in Amazon v. Future
Not open to approach M.P. Arbitration Tribunal in reference when the very same claim is already decided by Arbitrator appointed by High Court: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that where the Arbitrator appointed by the High
Whether limitation falls within the power of the Arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction – RF Nariman’s judgment in Indian Farmers case
by Hiroo Advani† and Manav Nagpal††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 73
SC resolves quandary over interplay of S. 9 and S. 17 of Arbitration Act, answers whether court can entertain application for interim measures after arbitral tribunal has been constituted
Supreme Court: A Division Bench comprising of Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. held that once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, the