Whose Arbitrator is it Anyway?
by Urvashi Mishra* and Anant Narayan Misra**
Arbitrator
No bar to invoke arbitration even if alternative remedy available under RERA Act: Gauhati High Court
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.
Can Arbitration proceedings be terminated on claimant’s failure to request Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing? SC answers
“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.”
Intention of parties can be construed from the correspondence exchanged between them: Delhi HC appoints Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.) as a Sole Arbitrator
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.
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.
‘Order not so perverse to shock the conscience of Court’; Delhi HC dismisses petition challenging award passed by arbitrator
“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 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.
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.
‘3 years is a long period for filing application for appointing arbitrator’; SC suggests Parliament to bring amendment prescribing specific limitation period
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 deprecates frivolous contest by State instrumentalities over appointment of arbitrators
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.”
Essar Case | Supreme Court allows ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel – Indian Oil to appoint arbitrators
Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s decision rejecting IOCL’s plea seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal to settle claims.
Competence-Competence Doctrine in Indian Arbitration Law Jurisprudence: An In-Depth Analysis
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 79
Party given an option to choose from list of five arbitrators, shows panel is not broad based: Delhi High Court
“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’.”
Arbitrator’s failure to decide on Interest Claim amounts to a “Decision”, Calcutta High Court allows challenge under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Calcutta High Court held Arbitrator’s refusal to decide question of interest under the MSMED Act constitutes a “decision” and therefore, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“Arbitrator can interpret contract, but cannot travel beyond four-corners of contract and rewrite its terms and alter nature”: Orissa HC
Arbitrator is a Judge chosen by the parties and his decision is final as long as it is founded in fairness and justice and an award cannot be passed on the ipse dixit of the arbitrator.
Accrual of cause of action at a place for pursuing substantive legal action, not a consideration for determining territorial jurisdiction u/s 11 of A&C Act, 1996: Delhi High Court
“As per Clause 31.16 of Letter of Intent between parties, place of arbitration was Faridabad (Haryana), which will be chosen as the seat, since seat has not been separately named and there are no other contrary indicia to show that place of arbitration is not intended to be seat of arbitration.”
Arbitrator’s fees to be treated as preferential payments even where CIRP proceedings are pending before NCLT: Madras High Court
Madras High Court said that if the Arbitrators are not paid their fees / costs on account of the moratorium order, the object of arbitration will get defeated, as competent Arbitrators will hesitate to become Arbitrators in a dispute involving Companies facing financial crisis.
Can Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council entertain references to arbitration from ‘Medium Enterprises’ under MSMED Act, 2006? Delhi High Court analyses
The MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and ought to be construed in a manner that is beneficial to such enterprises.
Superior court’s reversal/modification of a question of law forming the basis of a judgment cannot be a ground for review; Delhi HC reiterates
“In certain situations, it may be expedient to leave it to the arbitrator to determine the issue as to whether stamping is insufficient, and if so, the arbitrator will take recourse to Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1889.”
