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.
arbitration agreement
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.
Mere use of word ‘arbitration’ or ‘arbitrator’ not enough to construe an agreement to be an arbitration agreement: Delhi High Court
“It is palpably clear that the language of the purported arbitration clause must evidence an unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal intention to refer the disputes to arbitration, leaving no room for doubt that parties chose arbitration as their only mode of resolution of disputes.”
[Group of Companies Doctrine] Can non-signatories to an arbitration agreement be impleaded as a ‘party’ by the Arbitral Tribunal? Delhi High Court clarifies
An Arbitral Tribunal cannot arrogate to itself powers that are neither conferred by the statute, or the rules which govern the arbitration, nor can it take recourse to inherent powers, which as has been found hereinabove, are acknowledged to inhere in courts and judicial authorities only.
Arbitrator’s view is ultimate, not to be interfered with by Courts, unless arbitration agreement evidently absent: Calcutta High Court
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.
Decoding Arbitrability and Determining the Boundaries of Arbitration in Indian Jurisprudence
by Vasanth Rajasekaran†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 57
Necessity of Stamping of Arbitration Agreements: Is the Conundrum Solved?
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Megha Saha††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 41
N.N. Global Dictum: Has the Stamping Issue’s Resolution Opened a Pandora Box?
by Vasanth Rajasekaran †
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 38
We Dissent! Here’s why 2 out of 5 Judges of Supreme Court ruled unstamped arbitration agreements are valid at pre-referral stage
The practice of dissent in judicial decision-making process plays a critical role in revealing constitutional commitment to deliberative democracy. Allowing judges to express differing views and engage in a dialogue about the law and its interpretation can potentially lead to a more nuanced and refined understanding of the law, as the Court grapples with competing interpretations and seeks to reconcile them in a principled manner.
Conflict of Laws vis-à-vis Foreign Seat of Arbitration
by Mayank Singh†
EXPLAINED| Stamp Act versus Arbitration Act issue on validity of an Unstamped Arbitration Agreement as Supreme Court reserves Judgment
The Constitution bench considered a question of law : whether the instrument was duly stamped or not, was not only contrary to the plain language of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, but also wholly defeated the legislative intention of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, and puts a spoke in the wheel of conduct of the arbitration process at its very inception.