Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
SC Collegium modified its proposal to recommend Justice Rabstan as Chief Justice of his parent High Court of J&K and Ladakh and he took oath of office on 27-9-2024.
by Abhisaar Bairagi*, Milind Sharma** and Ausaf Ayyub***
Top arbitration cases on unilateral appointment, seat of arbitration, limitation period, scope of judicial scrutiny and more.
The Court clarified that the ‘Closest Connection Test’ for determining the seat of arbitration is no longer a viable criterion for determination. The seat of arbitration cannot be determined by formulaic and unpredictable application of choice of law rules based on abstract connecting factors to the underlying contract.
Justice Tashi Rabstan was earlier recommended to be appointed as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court; however, the SC Collegium modified its proposal to recommend him as Chief Justice of his parent High Court of J&K and Ladakh.
The Delhi High Court says that the seat of the arbitration is to be determined based on arbitral proceedings and not with cause of action for underlying disputes.
by Jeevan Ballav Panda1 and Satish Padhi2
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 29
As per Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere or in any other law where with respect to an Arbitration Agreement, any application has been made to a Court which had jurisdiction, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings which was first approached.
“The Court observes that the ‘contrary indicia’ is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.”
Calcutta High Court dismissed the present petition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 20 and 42 r/w S. 2(1)(e) — Jurisdictional seat of arbitration once fixed under S.
Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one
Mere expression “place of arbitration” cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the “Seat of Arbitration”
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has held that subsequent hearings or proceedings at a different location
by Jeevan Ballav Panda† and Satish Padhi††
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed an important case regarding nature of arbitration under Arbitration
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of V. Chitambaresh and R. Narayana Pisharadi, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Section 29-A(5) of the Arbitration and
By B.A. Sujay Prasanna*