Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
Jharkhand High Court noticed that the Facilitation Council proceeded with an award, with no record of failure of conciliation or parties going for arbitration.
“The expression ‘public policy’ is of wider amplitude and hence, where award passed by arbitral tribunal is against the terms of contract or against law of land for time being in force, such an award is against public policy of India and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
Bombay High Court viewed that by considering delays prior to the new contract, there was a ‘patent perversity apparent on the face of the award’.
The Supreme Court explained that the older Act enabled the Court to modify an award, a power which was consciously omitted by Parliament while enacting the 1996 Act, hinting towards exclusion of power to modify an award.
The Indian Arbitration Leadership Roundtable organized by the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC) witnessed in-depth discussion over various important facets of Institutional Arbitration.
Concluding that the principal contention raised by the petitioner regarding consolidation of claims arising out of nine separate contracts is devoid of substance, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition refusing to interfere with the arbitral award.
At a symposium on ‘Issues Arising out of Construction Contracts: Advocacy & Evidence’ organized by Saraf & Partners Law Offices and the Society of Construction Law, India, Former CJI N.V. Ramana discussed various challenges while adjudicating disputes arising from construction contracts.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996
Supreme Court: While adjudicating an appeal relating to arbitration, the Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that
Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, CJ., A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli*, JJ., held that Arbitral Tribunal is empowered
Supreme Court: In a case where the Punjab and Haryana High Court not only set aside the judgment of the District Judge
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Govind Mathur, CJ and Siddhartha Verma, J. had issued certain direction earlier in order to
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of V. Chitambaresh, Satish Ninan, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the lower