arbitration agreement
Arbitrator’s discretion to fix venue/seat of arbitration cannot override parties’ exclusive jurisdiction clause in arbitration agreement: Delhi HC
When parties agree to vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular court for any dispute arising out of the arbitration clause, it must be presumed that they intended that court only to have supervisory control.
Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met
The Court noted that under Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act it is not necessary to conclude a contract for the arbitration agreement contained within it to be valid. The arbitration agreement must form a part of documents/communication exchange between the parties.
Explained | Supreme Court decision on scope & ambit of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act
“There is no need for an explicit written arbitration agreement to attract Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act. The provision creates a legal fiction as regards the existence of an arbitration agreement”
Non-issue of notice to certain parties under S. 21 of A&C Act does not strip the Arbitral Tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead: SC
“Section 21 does not expressly mandate the claimant to send a notice invoking arbitration to the respondents. However, the provision necessarily mandates such notice, as its receipt by the respondent is required to commence arbitral proceedings”.
SC stresses on judicial restraint in arbitration matters; sets aside HC’s order granting opportunity for cross-examination despite Arbitral Tribunal’s rejection
The Court examined the question that whether the High Court correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent one more opportunity to cross-examine the appellant’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejected such a prayer.
‘Existence of arbitration agreement in license agreement and share subscription agreement not in dispute’, Supreme Court refers matter to DIAC for appointment of sole arbitrator
“We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party including regarding the arbitrability of the dispute. All contentions and pleas are kept open for the parties to raise before the arbitral tribunal.”
Express designation of place in an arbitration agreement is an appropriate criterion to determine Seat of Arbitration: SC
The Court clarified that the ‘Closest Connection Test’ for determining the seat of arbitration is no longer a viable criterion for determination. The seat of arbitration cannot be determined by formulaic and unpredictable application of choice of law rules based on abstract connecting factors to the underlying contract.
Supreme Court explains how Non-Signatories may be bound by Arbitration Agreements
The Supreme Court elucidated the key factors through which the intention of the parties to be bound by an arbitration agreement can be gauged.
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.
Application for Interim Measures by Non-Signatories to an Arbitration Agreement: A Continuing Enigma?
by Kunal Mimani† and Kartikey Bhatt††
Supreme Court 5-Judge Bench Ruling on Group of Companies Doctrine: What You Need to Know
“Even though a subsidiary derives interests or benefits from a contract entered into by the company within a group, they would not be covered under the expression “claiming through or under” merely on the basis that it shares a legal or commercial relationship with the parties.”
Group of Companies Doctrine applicable in Indian Arbitration Jurisprudence; Can bind non-signatory parties to Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court 5 Judge Bench
“The approach in Chloro Controls India Private Limited v. Severn Trent Water Purification, (2013) 1 SCC 641 to the extent that it traces the group of companies doctrine to the phrase ‘claiming through or under’ as given under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was erroneous and against the well settled principles of contract in commercial law”.
Competence-Competence Doctrine in Indian Arbitration Law Jurisprudence: An In-Depth Analysis
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 79
[Unstamped Arbitration Agreement] Bombay High Court fixes deficiency of stamp duty and penalty
The Bombay High Court explained that if it was to consider the instant application under Section 11 of A&C Act, it would have to work on the deficiency of stamp duty and penalty, if any.
Seat of arbitration once fixed by the arbitration agreement, has the exclusive jurisdiction for applications u/s 11 of the A&C Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court
“The Court observes that the ‘contrary indicia’ is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.”
[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.
Liberty Footwear v. Liberty Shoes : Delhi High Court dismisses the petition for the want of jurisdiction
“District Court, Karnal where the first petition was filed pertaining to the Agreement in question alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the Licence Agreement. No other Court can entertain any subsequent application.
Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause
“The Court exercised the powers conferred under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed, Jai Prakash Narayan Purohit, Retired Additional District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.”
‘Certified copy’ of the original arbitration agreement suffice if duly stamped, declaration made and uncontroverted for the purpose of S. 11 Arbitration Act
The case relates as to how the statutory mandate under Section 11(13) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which aims at expeditious disposal of petitions under Section 11 of the Act, is harmonized with the obligation imposed vide the judgment N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd, (2023) 7 SCC 1, to act in tune with the statutory dictate of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.