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.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court setting aside the arbitral award observing that the application for the Principle of Separability requires a binding arbitration agreement.
Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant petition, Aravind Kumar, C.J., said that the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. allowed appeals filed by the
Madras High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed against the order of the single judge, whereby, the judge allowed the
The Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, RGNUL (CADR) is collaborating with Surana & Surana International Attorneys, headquartered in Chennai, India
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (‘A&C Act') challenging
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 12-12-2018 passed by the Additional
Rajasthan High Court: Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. found that the writ petition by the petitioner lacks merit and dismissed it
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J. upheld the award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal holding that the award holder
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha, JJ., expressed that, “…compensation payable under Sections 73, 74
by Tariq Khan†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 8
Supreme Court: Explaining the provision of remission under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench of R.
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 1
Allahabad High Court: Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J., held that, Section 36 of the 1996 Act makes the arbitral award capable of
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh, JJ., while addressing a matter with regard to the arbitral
Delhi High Court: On finding no ground for interference in the arbitral award, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., upheld the decision of Single
by Hiroo Advani† and Manav Nagpal††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 73
by Priyal Jain† and Prasann Malviya††
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., while addressing a significant and interesting question of law expressed