{"id":246076,"date":"2021-03-25T09:05:35","date_gmt":"2021-03-25T03:35:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=246076"},"modified":"2021-03-25T09:11:23","modified_gmt":"2021-03-25T03:41:23","slug":"arbitration-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Is passing of \u201creasoned order\u201d a requisite while refusing to refer a matter to arbitration?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\u201c27<\/em>. … While deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. \u2026 The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible\/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The above mentioned are the observations of the Supreme Court in Sant Lal Gupta <\/em>v. <\/strong>Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.<\/strong><\/em>[1]<\/a>,<\/em><\/strong> wherein the Supreme Court, after relying on plethora of its previous cases, has made its observations on point of a reasoned\/speaking order.<\/p>\n

Sections 8[2]<\/a> and 45[3]<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter, “A&C Act, 1996”) respectively envisage that if a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d, which is dealing with a matter between the parties, is apprised by one of the party that the matter in dispute before it contains an arbitration agreement, then such \u201cjudicial authority\u201d shall immediately refer the parties to arbitration, unless it prima facie finds that no valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties.<\/em>[4]<\/a> The only difference between Sections 8 and 45 of the A&C Act, 1996 is that the former applies in cases of \u201cdomestic arbitration\u201d, while the latter applies in cases of \u201cforeign commercial arbitration\u201d.<\/p>\n

The words \u201cdomestic arbitration\u201d and \u201cforeign commercial arbitration\u201d are not defined under the A&C Act, 1996. A \u201cdomestic arbitration\u201d can be said to be an arbitration, where the \u201cseat of arbitration\u201d is chosen as India; and a \u201cforeign commercial arbitration\u201d is the one whose \u201cseat of arbitration\u201d is outside India and also it shall deal only with commercial legal relationship between the parties. Hence, it is the \u201cseat\u201d or \u201cplace\u201d of arbitration, which differentiates between the two, and not the \u201cnature\u201d of arbitration. Part 1 of the A&C Act, 1996 applies exclusively to the \u201cdomestic arbitration\u201d,[5]<\/a> while Part 2 applies exclusively to \u201cforeign arbitration\u201d, and Part 1 applies to both international arbitrations which take place in India as well as domestic arbitrations which would normally take place in India.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

What is a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d is also not defined under the A&C Act, 1996. But, a 7-Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in SBP & Co. <\/em>v. Patel Engg. Ltd.,<\/strong><\/em>[7]<\/a> has held that a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d would include a court as defined under Section 2(e<\/em>)[8]<\/a> of the A&C Act, 1996, and would also include other courts and special tribunals. On the basis of above-mentioned ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court, we can say that all the courts, quasi-judicial bodies, tribunals, etc., that are functioning for the purposes of administration of justice in India are the \u201cjudicial authorities\u201d under the A&C Act, 1996.<\/p>\n

All the courts, quasi-judicial bodies, tribunals, etc., in India must necessarily follow the principles of natural justice. One of such principle is giving of reasons for an order passed by them (i.e., reasoned order). Now, in A&C Act, 1996, when a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d passes an order, either referring the matter to arbitration or refusing to refer the matter to arbitration, does it need to pass a reasoned\/speaking order? Let us understand the legal position by way of following scenarios:<\/p>\n

Scenario 1:<\/strong> A judicial authority is approached under Section 8 (domestic arbitration) of the A&C Act, 1996 in a matter which is subject to an arbitration agreement. The judicial authority, on prima facie examination of an \u201carbitration agreement\u201d, finds that the matter is subject to arbitration and refers the parties to arbitration. The option left before the aggrieved party is to contest the arbitration proceedings and subsequently challenge it, either before the \u201cArbitral Tribunal\u201d under Section 16(1)[9]<\/a> of the A&C Act, 1996 or challenge the \u201carbitral award\u201d itself under Section 34(2)[10]<\/a> of the A&C Act, 1996.<\/p>\n

Scenario 2:<\/strong> A judicial authority is approached under Section 8 (domestic arbitration) of the A&C Act, 1996 in a matter which is subject to an arbitration agreement. The judicial authority, on prima facie examination of an \u201carbitration agreement\u201d, finds that the matter is not subject to arbitration and refuses to refer the parties to arbitration. The option left before the aggrieved party is, before contesting in the arbitration proceedings, it can file an appeal under Section 37(1)(a<\/em>)[11]<\/a> of the A&C Act, 1996[12]<\/a> before the court which is authorised by law to hear appeals from original decree of the court passing such order of refusal.<\/p>\n

Scenario 3:<\/strong> A judicial authority is approached under Section 45 (foreign commercial arbitration) of the A&C Act, 1996 in a matter which is subject to an arbitration agreement. The judicial authority, on prima facie examination of an \u201carbitration agreement\u201d, finds that the matter is subject to arbitration and refers the parties to arbitration. The option left before the aggrieved party is to contest the arbitration from the \u201cplace\u201d mentioned in arbitration agreement and try the remedies available under the law of place of such arbitration.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

Scenario 4:<\/strong> A judicial authority is approached under Section 45 (foreign commercial arbitration) of the A&C Act, 1996, in a matter which is subject to an arbitration agreement. The judicial authority, on prima facie examination of an \u201carbitration agreement\u201d, finds that the matter is not subject to arbitration and refuses to refer the parties to arbitration. The option left before the aggrieved party is, before contesting in the arbitration proceedings, it can file an appeal under Section 50(1)(a<\/em>)[14]<\/a> of the A&C Act, 1996 before the court which is authorised by law to hear appeals from original decree of the court passing such order of refusal.<\/p>\n

Now, in Scenarios 1and 3, the \u201cjudicial authority\u201d, which on prima facie examination of an \u201carbitration agreement\u201d, refers the matter to arbitration, need not pass any \u201creasoned\/speaking order\u201d for such reference. In a very recent case relating to arbitration, the Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia <\/em>v. Durga Trading Corpn., <\/em>has observed that a prima facie examination is not a full review of the case on facts, it is just a preliminary and summary discussion of proceedings.[15]<\/a> As the matter under Scenarios 1 and 3 is not decided on \u201cmerits\u201d, and as it requires detailed examination by the \u201cArbitral Tribunal\u201d selected by or given to the parties, the judicial authority will not be in a position to pass a \u201cdetailed reasoned order\u201d. And also, as the party has to necessarily participate in arbitral proceedings without getting an opportunity to appeal, the need for a \u201creasoned order\u201d is not felt. And also, as the parties have an option, at least in case of \u201cdomestic arbitrations\u201d (Section 8), to challenge the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement before the \u201cArbitral Tribunal\u201d under Section 16(1) of the A&C Act, 1996 or challenge the \u201carbitral award\u201d itself under Section 34(2) of the A&C Act, 1996, hence, a \u201creasoned order\u201d by a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d is not necessary at the preliminary stage. This kind of exception to the mandatory passing of a \u201creasoned order\u201d (which is an important principle of natural justice) by a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d is to promote \u201cpro-arbitration regime\u201d in India.<\/p>\n

But, in Scenarios 2 and 4, the judicial authority, which on prima facie examination, refuses to refer the matter to arbitration, then such judicial authority must give a \u201creasoned order\u201d. In one of the judgments relating to arbitration, a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. <\/em>v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.<\/strong><\/em>[16]<\/a>, <\/strong>was dealing with an issue of whether a \u201cjudicial authority\u201d, while dealing with an objection under Section 45 of the A&C Act, 1996, about the arbitration agreement being \u201cnull and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed\u201d, needs to decide the objection on a prima facie view of the matter or decide the objection on merits? With 2:1 majority, the Supreme Court held that the correct approach to be adopted under Section 45 at the pre-reference stage, is one of prima facie finding by the trial court as to the validity or otherwise of the arbitration agreement.[17]<\/a> Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, in his supplementing judgment with the majority, has discussed the scope of when the \u201cjudicial authority\u201d must give a \u201creasoned order\u201d and when it shall not give a \u201creasoned order\u201d. His Lordships observed that<\/p>\n

\u201c111<\/em>. \u2026 <\/em>if on a prima facie examination of the documents and material on record including the arbitration agreement on which request for reference is made by one of the parties, the judicial authority or the court decides to make a reference, it may merely mention the submissions and contentions of the parties and summarily decide the objection if any raised on the alleged nullity, voidness, inoperativeness or incapability of the arbitration agreement. In case, however, on a prima facie view of the matter, which is required to be objectively taken on the basis of material and evidence produced by the parties on the record of the case, the judicial authority including a regular civil court, is inclined to reject the request for reference on the ground that the agreement is \u201c<\/em>null and void\u201d<\/em> or \u201c<\/em>inoperative\u201d<\/em> or \u201c<\/em>incapable of being performed\u201d<\/em> within the meaning of Section 45 of the Act, the judicial authority or the court must afford full opportunities to the parties to lead whatever documentary or oral evidence they want to lead and then decide the question like trial of a preliminary issue on jurisdiction or limitation in a regular civil suit and pass an elaborate reasoned order. Where a judicial authority or the court refuses to make a reference on the grounds available under Section 45 of the Act, it is necessary for the judicial authority or the court which is seized of the matter to pass a reasoned order as the same is subject to appeal to the appellate court under Section 50(1)(a<\/em>) of the Act and further appeal to this Court (Supreme Court) under sub-section (2) of the said section.[18]<\/a><\/p>\n

It is to be noted that the words \u201c<\/em>prima facie\u201d <\/em>have been inserted under Sections 8 and 45 through Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 201519<\/a>, on the recommendations of Law Commission of India\u2019s 246th Report20<\/a>. And the basis of Law Commission\u2019s recommendation is the majority decision of Supreme Court in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. <\/em>case.21<\/a><\/p>\n

The supplementing opinion of Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, <\/em><\/strong>in regard with giving of \u201creasoned orders\u201d while refusing the referral of the matter to arbitration, shall be followed, because, the aggrieved party does not get an opportunity to contest in the arbitration proceedings before the \u201cArbitral Tribunal\u201d, by virtue of the \u201crefusal order\u201d by the \u201cjudicial authority\u201d. The only remedy for the aggrieved party is filing an appeal, under Sections 37(1)(a<\/em>) and 50(1)(a<\/em>) respectively, to the appellate court from the order of refusal by such \u201cjudicial authority\u201d under Sections 8 and 45 respectively. And when an appellate court decides the matter, it shall be in a position to know the reasons of \u201cjudicial authority\u201d for what reason it has refused to refer the matter to arbitration. It is one of the facets of principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n

\n

\u2020<\/a>\u00a0 LLB student, University College of Law, Osmania University, Hyderabad, e-mail:<\/span> akashbaglekar@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/u><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> (2010) 13 SCC 336<\/a>, pp. 345-346,.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> <http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/0P4pSy8x<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> <http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/7vabSnZy<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> In S. 45, the wording is unless it prima facie finds that the said agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. On close scrutiny, the meaning of both the wordings are almost same.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Bharat Aluminium Co. <\/em>v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., <\/em>(2012) 9 SCC 552<\/a>. It is to be noted that by inserting a proviso to S. 2(2) through A&C (Amendment) Act, 2016, the legislature has relaxed the Supreme Court\u2019s ratio decidendi, thereby applying S. 9 (interim relief by Indian courts), S. 27 (Indian courts assistance in taking evidence), and S. 37 (appeal from granting or refusal of interim relief and appeal to the Supreme Court) of the Part 1 to the Part 2 of the A&C Act, 1996.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Id<\/em>., at para 88.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> (2005) 8 SCC 618<\/a> at para 19.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> <http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/TA0St4w3<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> <http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/C8X6A4y5<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> \u00a0<http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/teuo89l3<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> \u00a0<http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/0Vi7sQsH<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> This appeal provision from refusal to refer parties to arbitration was added through the A&C (Amendment) Act, 2016.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> It is to be noted that the \u201cplace of arbitration\u201d can even be India, if the arbitration agreement between the parties is silent about it. It will be decided by the \u201cArbitral Tribunal\u201d based on facts and circumstances of each case, and not by the \u201cjudicial authority\u201d which is approached under S. 45. But, generally, in practical parlance the parties (at least if it is foreign party\/parties) decide the place of arbitration beforehand.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> <http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/cd4DUf7O<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> (2021) 2 SCC 1: 2020 SCC Online SC 1018<\/a> at para 123.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> (2005) 7 SCC 234<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Id<\/em>., at para 106.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Id.<\/em>, at pp. 277-278.<\/p>\n

19<\/a> <http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/9ajA4z9b<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

20<\/a> <http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/N7O69Zxv<\/a>>.<\/p>\n

21<\/a> Supra<\/em> note 16.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Baglekar Akash Kumar\u2020<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":246077,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[3226,34147,29785,2805],"class_list":["post-246076","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-arbitration","tag-judicial-authority","tag-law","tag-natural_justice"],"yoast_head":"\nIs passing of \u201creasoned order\u201d a requisite while refusing to refer a matter to arbitration? | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Arbitration\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Is passing of \u201creasoned order\u201d a requisite while refusing to refer a matter to arbitration?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Arbitration\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-03-25T03:35:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-25T03:41:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Arbitration-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/\",\"name\":\"Is passing of \u201creasoned order\u201d a requisite while refusing to refer a matter to arbitration? | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Arbitration-1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-25T03:35:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-25T03:41:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Arbitration\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Arbitration-1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Arbitration-1.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Is passing of \u201creasoned order\u201d a requisite while refusing to refer a matter to arbitration?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Is passing of \u201creasoned order\u201d a requisite while refusing to refer a matter to arbitration? | SCC Times","description":"Arbitration","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Is passing of \u201creasoned order\u201d a requisite while refusing to refer a matter to arbitration?","og_description":"Arbitration","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-03-25T03:35:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-25T03:41:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Arbitration-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/","name":"Is passing of \u201creasoned order\u201d a requisite while refusing to refer a matter to arbitration? | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Arbitration-1.jpg","datePublished":"2021-03-25T03:35:35+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-25T03:41:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Arbitration","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Arbitration-1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Arbitration-1.jpg","width":1331,"height":888},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/25\/arbitration-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Is passing of \u201creasoned order\u201d a requisite while refusing to refer a matter to arbitration?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Arbitration-1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":268907,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/23\/reasoned-order-justice-reason-soul-supreme-court-judgment-scc-snippet-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":246076,"position":0},"title":"SCC Snippet| Why Reason is the Soul of Justice [(2010) 9 SCC 496]","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"June 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The bench of GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly, JJ, in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, stressed upon the importance of reasoned judicial orders and elaborated on why \u201creason is the soul of justice.\u201d The Court summarized the following points: (a) Insistence on recording\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":265409,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/13\/confidentiality-and-open-justice-in-arbitration-disputes-in-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":246076,"position":1},"title":"A Conflict of Principles: Confidentiality and Open Justice in Arbitration Disputes in Court","author":"Editor","date":"April 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Drasti Jain* and Aryan Deshmukh**","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Arbitration.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216540,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/05\/ori-hc-quasi-judicial-body-ought-to-provide-grounds-of-dismissal-of-employee-from-services\/","url_meta":{"origin":246076,"position":2},"title":"Ori HC | Quasi-Judicial body ought to provide grounds of dismissal of employee from services","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 5, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S.K. Mishra and Dr A.K. Mishra, JJ., dismissed a writ appeal and provided the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity as the respondent-individual was denied the right of being heard and dismissed without any reason by a quasi-judicial authority. In the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":281990,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/19\/delhi-high-court-quashes-arbitral-award-seeking-payment-as-the-notice-was-not-served-no-effective-delivery-notice-under-section-21-aribtration-act-wrong-application-of-governing-law-legalnews-legalres\/","url_meta":{"origin":246076,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court quashes arbitral award for ineffective delivery of notice and wrong application of Indian laws in a case governing UAE Federal Labour Law","author":"Editor","date":"January 19, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court has a duty to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice and when an award has been passed without complying with the mandatory principles of natural justice, this Court being the custodian of rights and liberties of parties must take its guard to correct the infirmities which\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":293556,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/01\/delhi-high-court-sets-aside-additional-costs-60crores-for-award-being-patently-illegal-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":246076,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court sets aside additional costs of Rs. 60 crores granted in favour of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd in absence of substantial evidence","author":"Arunima","date":"June 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"An arbitral tribunal is also considered a court for the purposes of adjudication of claims before it and is often subject to the requirement of providing reasons while granting a party any relief, not for the purposes of adjudicating the validity of an order but for the satisfaction, understanding and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":172134,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/29\/quasi-judicial-order-can-passed-giving-opportunity-hearing-applicant\/","url_meta":{"origin":246076,"position":5},"title":"Quasi-judicial order can be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to applicant","author":"Saba","date":"November 29, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: While deciding a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent-Foreign Trade Development Officer, holding that it did not meet the requirements of principles of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246076","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246076"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246076\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/246077"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}