Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The intention of both the parties where to go for arbitration, is at Ranchi and the proceeding after permission of the High Court was also conducted at Ranchi and in the agreement, the seat is also said to be at Ranchi. Thus, Ranchi court is having jurisdiction.
The Court relied on Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406., wherein it was held that a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable, though in some manner the arbitrator would examine the right to copyright, a right in rem.
by Shalaka Patil† and Surbhi Shah††
“Merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal, is no ground to set aside the award”.
“The legislative intent of inserting Section 29-A of the Act is only for expeditious disposal of the arbitration proceedings and not to confer a new defence upon an unsuccessful party to challenge the award and to reopen the entire proceedings.”
A quick recap of the latest rulings on Arbitration Law by the High Courts.
“There is no dispute as to the power of the courts to award interest on interest or compound interest in a given case subject to the power conferred under the statutes or under the terms and conditions of the contract; but where no such power is conferred ordinarily, the courts do not award interest on interest”.
by Urvashi Mishra* and Anant Narayan Misra**
There is nothing to show that there is any inconsistency or repugnancy between the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and arbitration as an alternative. The parties have agreed to arbitration clause provided in contract agreement for settlement of disputes including the issue raised by petitioners.
“The abandonment of the claim can be either express or implied. The abandonment cannot be readily inferred. There is an implied abandonment when admitted or proved facts are so clinching that the only inference which can be drawn is of the abandonment.”
The Court opined that all nine contracts are related to same project and if it is accepted that there is an Arbitration Clause only in five contracts, then parties will have to be relegated to civil proceedings, which will lead to multiplicity of disputes, delay in adjudication and possibility of conflicting rulings.
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.
“A perusal of the impugned order shows that the arbitrator has yet not fully closed the issue and has decided to adjudicate on the issue after evidence is led on the same issue.”
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.
Bombay High Court directed MCIA to substitute the arbitrator and appoint an independent arbitrator to continue with the arbitral proceedings.
Supreme Court, while allowing the present petition, appointed Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to act as the sole arbitrator.
Punjab and Haryana High Court commented that “Such an approach would defeat the intent and objective behind the incorporation of the Act of 1996, which provides for a speedy and efficacious resolution of disputes.”
Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s decision rejecting IOCL’s plea seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal to settle claims.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 79
“The Court failed to appreciate as to how the position, where not only does the respondent had the power to unilaterally appoint two out of the three arbitrators and compelled the petitioner to choose one of the panels of five arbitrators can be said to meet the test of ‘counter balancing’.”