Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
There is nothing to show that there is any inconsistency or repugnancy between the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and arbitration as an alternative. The parties have agreed to arbitration clause provided in contract agreement for settlement of disputes including the issue raised by petitioners.
“Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 states a financial creditor, either by itself or jointly, with other financial creditors, or any other person on behalf of the financial creditor, may file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor before the Adjudicating Authority when a default has occurred.”
“The arbitral proceedings in the matter were not terminated but the Arbitrator had been non-responsive and was unable to perform his functions. Thus, as per Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the present case is suited for appointment of a substitute Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes.”
“When a Coordinate Bench issues a judgment on a particular legal issue, that judgment becomes binding precedent for subsequent cases involving a similar issue before another Coordinate Bench”
Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act: Jurisprudence on the setting aside awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
‘A reference to the document in the contract should be such that shows the intention to incorporate the arbitration clause contained in the document into the contract’
The Court noted that, “To attract curial intervention, it must be established that the breach of the rules of natural justice must, at the very least, have actually altered the final outcome of the arbitral proceedings in some meaningful way”.
Bombay High Court directed MCIA to substitute the arbitrator and appoint an independent arbitrator to continue with the arbitral proceedings.
by Abhijnan Jha†, Bhagya K. Yadav†† and Pranav Tomar†††
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 1
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 89
The objection raised was on the ground that, although the applicants and respondent 2 formed a partnership to enter into the investment agreement with respondent 1, the notice invoking arbitration was issued only on behalf of the applicants and that respondent 2, despite being a partner, did not join in issuing the invocation notice.
“The concept of separability or severability of an arbitration agreement from the underlying contract is a legal fiction which acknowledges the separate nature of an arbitration agreement. The separate nature of the arbitration agreement from the underlying contract is one of the cornerstones of arbitration law”
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 83
Bombay High Court held the instant applications under Section 11 of Arbitration Act as non-maintainable and dismissed the said applications.
At this juncture, examining whether the petition filed before the NCLT can be said to be a ‘dressed-up’ petition, would necessarily require a detailed exercise to be carried out by this Court to render findings either way clearly impinging upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT in deciding such a question.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in July 2023.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
by Puneeth Ganapathy*
by Vasanth Rajasekaran†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 57