“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.”
“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”.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
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.
“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.”
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.
“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.
“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.”
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 57
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Megha Saha††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 41
by Vasanth Rajasekaran †
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 38
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.
by Mayank Singh†
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.
Supreme Court: The division bench of Uday Umesh Lalit, C.J. and Bela M. Trivedi*, J. has held that the provisions
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Panasonic India Private Limited (petitioner) seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes which