Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award passed by Arbitrator having de jure inability to pass the award
The ineligibility of an Arbitrator goes to the root of his jurisdiction and the Arbitral Award cannot be considered as valid.
arbitral award
Delhi High Court sets aside additional costs of Rs. 60 crores granted in favour of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd in absence of substantial evidence
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 Funders to be fully aware of their exposure and cannot be mulcted with liability which they have not undertaken or are aware of: Delhi High Court
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 refuses to grant relief in a contract being determinable in nature and hence, not enforceable
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.
Arbitral award itself stands vitiated, if passed by unilaterally appointed arbitrator(s): Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between both the parties.
‘Interest cannot be withheld in the absence of express provisions permitting the same’; Delhi High Court partially sets aside arbitral award for being patently illegal
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.
Bombay High Court refuses to interfere with arbitration award for consolidated claims
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.
Delhi High Court finds no ground for interference as reappreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of Section 37 Arbitration Act
The scope of a challenge under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 Arbitration Act.
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9
The Delhi High Court denied permanent injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and held that Section 9 did not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure.
Supreme Court| Pre-amended Section 34(2)(a) shall be applicable on arbitration proceedings commenced and concluded prior to amendment of 2019
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.
Court of Appeal | Application of Principle of Separability requires a legally binding arbitration agreement
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 | Notice for appointment of arbitrator cannot be rejected on ground of vague material particulars
Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant petition, Aravind Kumar, C.J., said that the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator
Uttaranchal High Court | Commercial Court cannot modify arbitral award in absence of manifest and patent error/illegality
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. allowed appeals filed by the
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
3rd Surana & Surana & RGNUL International Arbitral Award Writing Competition, 2022 | Submit by November 20, 2022
The Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, RGNUL (CADR) is collaborating with Surana & Surana International Attorneys, headquartered in Chennai, India
Delhi High Court: Amendment application being rejected as ‘belated’ does not constitute interim award susceptible to challenge under S 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (‘A&C Act') challenging
Merely showing existence of another reasonable interpretation not sufficient to allow for interference; Punjab and Haryana HC refuses to interfere with arbitration award
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 | No award can be remitted to the arbitrator where there are no findings in the contentious issues of the award
Rajasthan High Court: Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. found that the writ petition by the petitioner lacks merit and dismissed it
Calcutta High Court| Order XLI, Rule 5(1) of the CPC grants the court discretion to stay the execution of a decree for ‘sufficient cause’; Award by arbitral tribunal upheld
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J. upheld the award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal holding that the award holder
Compensation payable under Ss. 73, 74 and 75 are only for loss or damage caused by breach or inclusive of mere act of breach as well? Ker HC explains
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha, JJ., expressed that, “…compensation payable under Sections 73, 74