arbitral award

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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
Case BriefsSupreme 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
Case BriefsSupreme Court

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.

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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.

himachal pradesh high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“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.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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.

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 obligates the Arbitrator to remain neutral and to disclose to the parties any acts or omissions that are likely to fall foul of the mandate.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“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.”

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The irrationality of the quantum of the costs imposed will be considered at the time of determining whether the Award should be set aside under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The present case is an example where substantial liability has sought to be fastened on one of the contracting parties based on specious paper calculations. It cannot be overemphasized that arbitral tribunals must exercise due care and caution while dealing with such claims.

2023 SCC Vol. 6 Part 2
Cases ReportedSCC Weekly

Power of Indian Courts to modify an Arbitral Award: This article submits that the courts ought to have power to modify the

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court held that Court should not substitute its own view, replacing that of the arbitrator, unless it is manifestly evident that there existed no agreement.

himachal pradesh high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the District Court to decide the matter afresh.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The ineligibility of an Arbitrator goes to the root of his jurisdiction and the Arbitral Award cannot be considered as valid.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

An arbitral tribunal is also considered a court for the purposes of adjudication of claims before it and is often subject to the requirement of providing reasons while granting a party any relief, not for the purposes of adjudicating the validity of an order but for the satisfaction, understanding and notional justice for all the parties involved.

third party funding
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Permitting enforcement of an arbitral award against a non-party which had not accepted any such risk, was neither desirable nor permissible”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court observed that that the Sole Arbitrator was well within its jurisdiction to declare the Agreement dated 23-03-2001 as determinable agreement in view of the statement of claim of the respondent and Terms of the said Agreement.

Calcutta High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between both the parties.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The impugned arbitral award was passed without considering the clauses of the Concessionaire Agreement while adjudicating on the rate of interest to be granted, thus, suffers from infirmity and patent illegality.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Concluding that the principal contention raised by the petitioner regarding consolidation of claims arising out of nine separate contracts is devoid of substance, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition refusing to interfere with the arbitral award.