Enforcement of foreign awards may be refused for bias only in exceptional circumstances: Supreme Court
Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and emphasised the need for early enforcement of the foreign award by the competent forum.
arbitral award
Calcutta High Court determines applicable interest rate based on amended Section 31(7)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Calcutta High Court applied the amended Section 31(7)(b) for determining the interest rate after considering the silence of the Award on the interest issue and the subsequent execution proceedings filed after the 2016 amendment.
Delhi High Court holds NHPC entitlement as decree enforceable in law; Grants execution of arbitral award
If the part of an Award proposed to be annulled is independent, stands unattached to the other part and can be validly incised, the partial setting aside would be valid and justified. The same also applies to execution proceedings.
Delhi HC upholds arbitral award for transfer of Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute’s domain name ‘kashmirharvard.edu.in’ to Harvard College
“Petitioner shows a scant regard for the limited scope of intervention with an award in an international commercial arbitration, or for the process of the Court. Pleas have been advanced which are contrary to the record, and many attempts have been made to mislead the Court.”
To constitute a valid service u/s 34(3) of A&C Act, a signed copy of Arbitral Award must be delivered to each party and not to their agent or lawyer: Delhi HC
“The expression ‘party’ as defined in Section 2(1)(h) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, clearly indicates a person who is a ‘party’ to an Arbitration Agreement and in no way includes the agent of the party to such Agreement.”
Calcutta High Court rejects time-barred claim in arbitration dispute over alleged failure to deliver signed copy of award
The Calcutta High Court opined that the onus is on the award-holder to provide irrefutable evidence of delivery, and any doubt in this regard favors the award-debtor.
High Court of Justice upholds challenge to arbitral award of 11 billion USD against Nigeria vis-à-vis Gas Supply and Processing Agreement
The Court termed this case to be highly unusual one that draws attention to matters of wider importance and touches the reputation of arbitration as a dispute resolution process.
Permissibility of Arbitration Proceedings by Empanelled Arbitrators under the MSMED Act, 2006
by Hiresh Choudhary* and Surbhi Sharma**
Credible evidence is must to substantiate claim of loss of profitability; SC sets aside arbitral award in conflict with ‘public policy of India’
“The credibility of the evidence is the evidence of the credibility of claim for loss of profit”.
Arbitrator’s failure to decide on Interest Claim amounts to a “Decision”, Calcutta High Court allows challenge under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Calcutta High Court held Arbitrator’s refusal to decide question of interest under the MSMED Act constitutes a “decision” and therefore, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
While cautioning the parties to the Arbitration proceedings, Calcutta High Court stated that parties should be vigilant in applying for extensions within the prescribed periods and dismissed the petitions seeking an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate.
Bombay High Court stays implementation of arbitral award on prima facie patent illegality
Bombay High Court viewed that by considering delays prior to the new contract, there was a ‘patent perversity apparent on the face of the award’.
[S.34 Arbitration Act] Delhi High Court upholds arbitral award for lack of benefit of the ground of “patent illegality”
A party cannot simply raise an objection on the ground of patent illegality if the Award is against them. Patent illegality requires a distinct transgression of law, the clear lack of which makes the petition a pointless effort of objection towards an Award passed by a competent Arbitral Tribunal.
S 34 (4) cannot save or aid an arbitral award suffering from illegalities stipulated under S. 34(2) Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is a clear and unequivocal embodiment of the Legislature‘s intent to balance the competing facets of arbitration, I.e., on one hand, while courts are enjoined to follow the minimalist intervention route, it would clearly be a travesty of justice if they were to fail to intervene where circumstances warrant, and demand corrective measures being adopted.
Dissenting Opinion in Arbitration cannot be treated as an award if majority award is set aside: Supreme Court
“Dissenting opinion of arbitrators might provide useful clues during procedural issues, which forms a critical part when the hearings are challenged”.
‘Court cannot modify arbitral award under Section 34 of Arbitration Act’: Supreme Court reiterates
The Supreme Court explained that the older Act enabled the Court to modify an award, a power which was consciously omitted by Parliament while enacting the 1996 Act, hinting towards exclusion of power to modify an award.
Compliance of Section 19 of MSMED Act is a pre-requisite for seeking Stay on Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court held that failure to comply with procedural requirements under Section 19 of the MSMED Act renders application for stay of Arbitral Award as not maintainable.
Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn’t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC
“The consensus of the parties in proceeding with the arbitration case beyond twelve months without raising any objection to the continuation of proceeding does amount to consent. On the basis of such consent, the arbitral award if passed after six months would be a valid award.”
[S. 34 Arbitration Act] Delhi High Court refuses to interfere in Indian Railway’s plea regarding arbitral award being perverse
Indian Railway’s has failed to substantiate its grounds for setting aside the impugned Arbitral Award that the impugned award suffers from patent illegality and the findings therein are perverse and would shock the conscience of this Court.