Confidentiality in Arbitration: Legal and Practical Challenges in India
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
arbitration and conciliation act
2024 SCC Vol. 6 Part 2
Arbitration — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Arbitral award — Validity of: Law explained on validity
2024 SCC Vol. 5 Part 5
Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 — S. 4(1)(f) — Suit for misdelivery of cargo and maritime claim by
Court is required to look only into existence of the arbitration clause at the stage of appointing arbitrator u/s 11 of Arbitration Act: Jharkhand HC
The respondent raised an objection to the maintainability of the present application on the ground that the petitioner being an agent governed under Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, was required to approach the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies for initiating a dispute resolution proceeding.
Whose Arbitrator is it Anyway?
by Urvashi Mishra* and Anant Narayan Misra**
Can mandate of arbitral tribunal be extended u/s 29A of the Arbitration Act, even after expiry of such mandate? Delhi HC answers
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers Courts to extend mandate of arbitral tribunals beyond the specified limitation.
‘Process for redressal of grievances for refund of amount already initiated through arbitration’; Delhi HC refuses relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The Delhi High Court said that the petitioner had no prima facie right, title, and interest in the allotted units, and a case was not made out to restrain the respondents from creating any third-party interest.
Delhi High Court appoints sole arbitrator despite clause specifying two arbitrators; Upholds parties’ intention to arbitrate
The Court noted Arbitration agreement specifying an even number of arbitrators cannot be a ground to render the arbitration agreement invalid. Appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) petition.
HIGH COURT JUNE 2024 WEEKLY ROUNDUP| Stories on West Bengal Post Poll Violence; Delhi Riots 2020; Delhi Excise Policy; and more
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
Mere sending notice u/s 21 of Arbitration Act not sufficient; receipt of notice is prerequisite for commencement of proceedings: Delhi HC
In the present case, the notice has not been sent to the complete address which results in incomplete service of notice.
[S. 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] Any attempt to modify an award would amount to crossing the ‘Lakshman Rekha’; Sikkim HC reiterates
The Court noted that the appellant had accepted the award of all other claims except the one disputed, therefore they could not seek the setting aside of only the disputed claims as it would amount to seeking modification of the Award.
IIAC (Conduct of Micro and Small Enterprises Arbitration) Regulations, 2024
On June 07, 2024, IIAC has made India International Arbitration Centre (Conduct of Micro and Small Enterprises Arbitration) Regulations 2024 (‘The Regulations’)
Pre-Award, Pendente Lite, and Post-Award Interest in Arbitration: Decoding the Supreme Court’s Perspective
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Application for extending mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for passing Award to be filed only before ‘Court’ as defined u/s 2(1)(e) of A&C Act: Andhra Pradesh HC
“If the intention of the Parliament were to vest the power of extending the mandate of an Arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in High Court as envisaged under Section 11, then nothing could have prevented it from providing so.”
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,
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*