No Clause, No Deduction: Delhi HC Sets Aside Arbitral Award Allowing MGCC Shortfall Deduction as Patently Illegal
“There cannot be quarrel with the proposition that no clause can be read into the contract entered between the parties.”
Section 34
Legal Representatives Must Challenge Arbitral Awards Under Section 34, Not Article 227 or Section 115 CPC: Supreme Court
“Scheme of the Arbitration Act does not envision arbitration proceedings to cease with the death of a party. Section 35, Arbitration Act, extends the finality of an arbitral award not only to parties to the award, but also to ‘parties claiming under them’.”
Bombay High Court upholds Arbitral Award against TCS; Orders Rs. 96 Lakh Compensation to Inspira for Failed Edge Servers Delivery
“TCS should consider itself lucky that Inspira was successful in selling TCS’s user-specific Servers… Otherwise, TCS would have been liable to pay the entire price.”
‘Arbitral awards by lay arbitrators tested for substantial correctness, but natural justice remains non-negotiable’; Madras HC sets aside award passed by family elders
The Court was dealing with a case where the arbitrators forming part of the Arbitral Tribunal are not only lay persons, but are also, the family elders, who consented to resolve the dispute between two brothers considering the overall interest of the family and its business.
Rajasthan High Court: Appellate power under Section 37 confined to domain of Section 34 of Arbitration Act
“The scope of the intervention of the court in arbitral matters is virtually prohibited, if not absolutely barred.”
Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: Contours of Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitration Landscape
by Arush Khanna* and Akarsh Pandey**
Cases Reported in HCC | Arbitration Law Decoded: Leading Delhi HC Judgments Under the Arbitration Act, 1996
Explore latest Cases reported in SCC’s High Court Cases (HCC) on arbitration covering critical legal issues such as arbitrability, seat v. venue, limitations in filing, validity of arbitral awards under Section 34, appointment of arbitrators, and public policy considerations.
Breakdown of SC’s 4:1 Verdict on Court’s limited power to modify Arbitral Awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
The present controversy arose because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not expressly empower courts to modify or vary an arbitral award, and Section 34 of the 1996 Act only confers upon courts the power to set aside an award.
Can Arbitral Awards Be Modified in Setting Aside Proceedings? — A Brief on the Supreme Court’s Reinterpretation of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
by Aashish Gupta*, Puneeth Ganapathy** and Rishab Aggarwal***
Courts have limited power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Supreme Court by 4:1 majority
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the legal framework for challenging an arbitral award before a court, while Section 37 governs appeals against specific orders passed under the Act, including those made under Section 34.
‘Entirely based on false foundation’; Bombay HC dismisses condonation of delay application by National Highway Division in arbitration appeal
“It is now trite law that State agencies cannot hide behind the conventional excuse of bureaucratic delays and inefficiency in the State’s capacity, to condone delays.”
Delhi Court orders conditional stay on attachment of Bikaner House; Directs payment of decretal amount in terms of Arbitral Award
The Court had ordered the attachment of the Bikaner House to enforce payment since neither did the Nagar Palika of the State of Rajasthan comply with the court order to file an affidavit of assets nor did it pay the petitioner per the arbitral award.
Patiala House Court orders attachment of Bikaner House to enforce payment under an arbitral award
The Nagar Palika of the State of Rajasthan failed to comply with court order to file an affidavit of assets despite being given multiple opportunities and failed to pay the petitioner in accordance with the arbitral award.
NRJ Series | A person cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 34 of IPC without having anyone to share common intention with [(1953) 2 SCC 610]
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on common intention, dating back to the year 1953.
Bombay HC acquits four gang members convicted of murdering and attempting to murder rival gang members
The Court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt shall be given to the appellants and therefore partly allowed both the appeals, by acquitting them under Section 302 of IPC, and releasing the incarcerated appellants sentenced under Section 307 of IPC, for having served the ordered sentence period.
Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award due to violation of S. 12(5) Arbitration Act
“It is well settled principle that unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is not permissible under the law”
Arbitration award cannot be set aside on erroneous application of law unless it is patently illegal: Allahabad High Court reiterates
“The award is not required to be set aside until and unless it is vitiated by “patent illegality” appearing on the face of the record with a caveat that the award should not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by appreciation of evidence.”
‘Scope of interference in arbitration award passed u/s 34, 37 of A&C Act is limited unless error appears on face of record’; Telangana HC dismisses appeal
“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.”
‘Complete lack of due diligence in prosecution as petition u/s 34 of A&C Act, 1996 dismissed twice’; Delhi HC dismisses application filed for availing benefit u/s 14 of Limitation Act
“In the context of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, what needs to be seen is whether appellant has brought on the record any evidence to show that he is prosecuting the previously instituted suit with due diligence.”
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.