Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
Physical signature not essential; Exchange of correspondence can form valid arbitration agreement: Bombay HC
“It was open to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings and to prefer an application under Section 16, A&C Act to challenge the existence of the agreement, but it chose to stay away, and such conduct indicated a strategy of taking a chance by relying on purported errors to undermine an adverse award.”
Findings of already set-aside arbitral award cannot be treated as “alive and final”; Kerala HC quashes subsequent award
“It is trite law that if the Arbitrator fails to decide the counter claim in accordance with law, it will vitiate the award and that it is within the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to decide both the claim and counter claim.”
Buyer cannot reject goods after use; Bombay HC upholds ₹4.25 crore Arbitral award against Godrej & Boyce
“The Tribunal conducted a factual inquiry, relying on quality certificates, mill test reports, IGC test results, and inspection reports of the third-party agency, all of which confirmed that the tubes supplied by the respondent was in accordance with the requisite specifications. Once this was established, the burden shifted to the petitioner to prove defects.”
Arbitral awards carry increased credence when a detailed pre-arbitral process has already been contracted: Bombay High Court
“The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited entered into a contract, entailing the design and construction of specific stations and tunnels in the Mumbai Metro Rail Project, the bid for which was made by L&T-STEC JV Mumbai before the introduction of Goods and Services Tax.”