Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court held that the undue delay and indecisive conduct of the Arbitrator, which culminated in a rudderless Award, were utterly shocking, as he completely lost sight of the fundamental purpose of the arbitration process.
The Court was dealing with a case where the arbitrators forming part of the Arbitral Tribunal are not only lay persons, but are also, the family elders, who consented to resolve the dispute between two brothers considering the overall interest of the family and its business.
“The arbitration agreement must be interpreted in a purposive manner, but not literally so as to enable the parties to pursue the intended dispute redressal mechanism of contract”.
“Nothing has been placed on record by Dreamfolks to show that the said entities/ banks are its exclusive clients and that they have not entered similar agreements with other service providers like Dreamfolks.”
“As there is conflicting view upon the same by co-ordinate benches, in such circumstances this Court is of the view that the issue should be examined by a larger bench.”
“The waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will be inapplicable to the unilateral appointments as it is governed by Section 12(5), which specifically provides for waiver by express agreement in writing.”
by Ramkishore Karanam* and Preethi Sivaraman**
by Mohit Pandey*
“We find the conduct of HMDA not only to be in blatant disregard of the law but also evincing desperation to avoid the processes of law by pushing back their obligation to make payment to CEL by filing one vexatious proceeding after another.”
“The agreement executed between the parties is not disputed. This fact is not in dispute that the contract of the petitioner has been terminated and the money has been forfeited by the respondents in the month of October, 2019.”
“The High Court erred in bisecting the claim of the appellant into two parts, one arbitrable and the other non- arbitrable, when it found arbitration agreement to be there for settlement of disputes between the parties.”
“The provisions of CPC are only applicable to the extent of ‘enforcement’ of an award which are reflected in Order 21 of CPC. The legislature did not intend to permit a challenge an award during enforcement proceedings again on merits as it would be contrary to the objectives of the A&C Act which aims to ensure finality and limited judicial interference.”
by Prerana Priyanshu* and Asad Hussain**
By the Moot Court Committee, Department of Law, University of Calcutta [May 17 – 18 & June 4; Hybrid; Cash Prizes Upto Rs. 1.13L]: Register by May 9!
by Bhavya Shukla*, Yogendra Aldak** and Tamanna Sharma***
by Raghav Mittal*
by Sanjeev Kumar* and Anshul Sehgal**
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 7, 34 and 37 — Arbitration agreement — Bindingness of, on non-signatory — Group of Companies Doctrine