Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court clarified that limitation under Section 34, Arbitration Act, begins only upon disposal of proceedings formally instituted and entertained under Section 33 by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The Court did not grant any relief to the third consortium member, Abir Infrastructure Private Limited, as it had not filed an appeal challenging the High Court judgment.
“There cannot be quarrel with the proposition that no clause can be read into the contract entered between the parties.”
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award holding that deduction towards Minimum Guaranteed CENVAT Credit (MGCC) shortfall was impermissible in the absence of an express contractual clause. The Court also ruled that limitation commenced from the date of actual deduction from final invoices and not from a prior notice contemplating such deduction.
“Scheme of the Arbitration Act does not envision arbitration proceedings to cease with the death of a party. Section 35, Arbitration Act, extends the finality of an arbitral award not only to parties to the award, but also to ‘parties claiming under them’.”
Stay informed with the latest Supreme Court judgments from February 2026, covering critical areas such as uniform governance of Open Correctional Institutions; adjudication of WB SIR claims; NCERT book chapter on judiciary; Concerns over fraternity in ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ case etc.
“It is trite law that if the Arbitrator fails to decide the counter claim in accordance with law, it will vitiate the award and that it is within the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to decide both the claim and counter claim.”
“The issue with regard to the time barred claim is not to be gone into at the reference stage under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 but can be seen only by the Arbitrator/Arbitration Tribunal at the relevant stage.”
“Since disputes had already been subjected to arbitration and culminated in the Arbitral Award, the disputes and differences, including differences over interest payment prior to commencement of arbitration, are issues that are covered by constructive res judicata.”
“TCS should consider itself lucky that Inspira was successful in selling TCS’s user-specific Servers… Otherwise, TCS would have been liable to pay the entire price.”
BPL Ltd., having knowingly entered into the bill discounting agreement, was bound by its terms. Since it defaulted on repayment for years, the stipulated 36% compound interest could not be considered burdensome or oppressive.
“The UPLA Secretariat terminated the agreement with TCS in 2016, citing anomalies in another examination conducted by TCS for the Railway Recruitment Board.”
“Such an order merely terminates the arbitral proceedings on account of the claimant’s default in filing the statement of claim and does not involve any adjudication or determination of the rights or obligations of the parties.”
The Court was dealing with a case where the arbitrators forming part of the Arbitral Tribunal are not only lay persons, but are also, the family elders, who consented to resolve the dispute between two brothers considering the overall interest of the family and its business.
“The scope of the intervention of the court in arbitral matters is virtually prohibited, if not absolutely barred.”
“When a party is unable to analyse, comment or argue on a contention raised by the other party, it will certainly be deemed as a breach of natural justice and thereby, also a violation of the most fundamental notions of justice.”
The Court emphasised upon transparency in arbitration proceedings by setting aside an arbitral tribunal’s order which was based on a heavily redacted document. The Court categorically held that allowing parties to squirrel some information into the court record “in sealed cover” undermines every concept of fair justice and openness and transparency in the decision-making process.
“Should Gute Reise be desirous of using its account with Amazon for selling any products other than Victorinox’s branded products, it shall be free to do so, and Amazon shall not stand in the way of Gute Reise selling other products.”
by Dr G.B. Reddy* and Dr S.B. Md. Irfan Ali Abbas**
The Court noted that the registry did not follow the procedure prescribed in the GHC Rules for movement of the papers from the registry to the competent Court, thus there was no occasion for consideration by the Court concerned as to whether the respondents were entitled to condonation of delay in removal of office objections.