2024 SCC Vol. 4 Part 4
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(14) & Expln. thereto [as they stood prior to the 2019 Amendment Act], 31(8), 31-A,
arbitration and conciliation act
Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award due to violation of S. 12(5) Arbitration Act
“It is well settled principle that unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is not permissible under the law”
2024 SCC Vol. 4 Part 3
Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act: Jurisprudence on the setting aside awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
Arbitration award cannot be set aside on erroneous application of law unless it is patently illegal: Allahabad High Court reiterates
“The award is not required to be set aside until and unless it is vitiated by “patent illegality” appearing on the face of the record with a caveat that the award should not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by appreciation of evidence.”
Can the issue of limitation be decided in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act? Delhi High Court answers
“The Court’s jurisdiction at the pre-reference stage is only to determine the prime facie existence of an arbitration agreement and the final adjudication, even on the question of limitation, is to be left to the arbitral tribunal, being the parties’ chosen forum.”
Time to Fill the Legislative Vacuum for Limitation Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
by Justice (Retd.) Hemant Gupta*
2024 SCC Vol. 4 Part 1
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 8, 11 and 45 r/w Ss. 2(1)(h) and 7 — Group of Companies doctrine: Scope
A policy circular doesn’t serve as arbitration clause without explicit consent: Calcutta High Court
In the facts of this case, there is no reference to the Circular whereby the arbitration clause has been incorporated in the contract between the parties. It is true that the policy decision in terms of the Circular is to make arbitration a mechanism for dispute resolution both in cases of existing and future contracts.
Appointment of an Arbitrator from a narrow panel is violative of S. 12(5) of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
The vesting of the power for the confirmation of the nomination of arbitrators in the General Manager of the employer, runs contrary to the principle of impartiality and independence of the arbitration process.
Delhi High Court refers dispute to Arbitration after finding service by email and WhatsApp sufficient
“The notice invoking arbitration sent to the same address was reported to have been delivered, but in the Speed Post report, by which the petition was sent to the address, it is stated that no such person is available at the address.”
Supreme Court allows DMRC’s Curative Petition against arbitral award in favour of Delhi Airport Metro Express
Supreme Court has applied the standard of a ‘grave miscarriage of justice’ in the exceptional circumstances of this case where the process of arbitration has been perverted by the arbitral tribunal to provide an undeserved windfall to DAMEPL.
An Edge of the Institution Over Ad hoc Arbitration
by Justice Hemant Gupta (Retd.)*
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 28
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in India: An Analysis of Potential Issues and Strategies for Success
by Vasant Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 26
Bombay HC upholds costs awarded by Arbitrator in conformity with the cost regime under Section 31(A) of Arbitration Act
Bombay High Court viewed that while awarding costs, the Tribunal considered the conduct of parties including the petitioner and, in such circumstances, held it fair and appropriate for the claimant to make a fulsome recovery of its costs.
Interim Reliefs in Arbitration: Emerging Judicial Trends in India
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 24
2024 SCC Vol. 3 Part 1
Administrative Law — Administrative Action — Administrative or Executive Function — File notings/Internal orders: In-principle approval and file notings do not give
Bombay High Court clarifies provisions of Arbitration Act to be above Institutional Arbitration Rules; directs MCIA to appoint an independent arbitrator
Bombay High Court directed MCIA to substitute the arbitrator and appoint an independent arbitrator to continue with the arbitral proceedings.
Issue of non-signatory guarantor to be impleaded as party to arbitration is for arbitral tribunal to decide: Delhi High Court
“Prima facie, Respondents 3-5 are a veritable party to the loan agreement as they are connected with the loan documents and form part of the loan transaction.”
2024 SCC Vol. 2 Part 3
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34: Objections to the award: Law summarised relating to Court’s power to review awards under
‘No claim certificate’ by a party does not automatically render dispute non-arbitrable: Gujarat HC
“If the Court reaches a clear conclusion that there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is non-arbitrable, it may refuse to refer the dispute to arbitration, otherwise, the rule is to refer the dispute to arbitration”.