Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers Courts to extend mandate of arbitral tribunals beyond the specified limitation.
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.
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.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
In the present case, the notice has not been sent to the complete address which results in incomplete service of notice.
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.
On June 07, 2024, IIAC has made India International Arbitration Centre (Conduct of Micro and Small Enterprises Arbitration) Regulations 2024 (‘The Regulations’)
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
“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.”
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(14) & Expln. thereto [as they stood prior to the 2019 Amendment Act], 31(8), 31-A,
“It is well settled principle that unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is not permissible under the law”
Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act: Jurisprudence on the setting aside awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
“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.”
“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.”
by Justice (Retd.) Hemant Gupta*
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 8, 11 and 45 r/w Ss. 2(1)(h) and 7 — Group of Companies doctrine: Scope
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.
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.
“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 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.