{"id":330009,"date":"2024-09-04T10:00:49","date_gmt":"2024-09-04T04:30:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=330009"},"modified":"2024-09-04T10:38:07","modified_gmt":"2024-09-04T05:08:07","slug":"roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court partially sets aside Arbitral Award passed by Sole Arbitrator for failing to appreciate contractual terms subsisting between parties<\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Act’) seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 20-09-2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, a Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J. set aside the finding made by the Sole Arbitrator regarding the pre-litigation interest in the impugned award, since the Arbitrator had failed to appreciate the contractual terms that were present between the parties. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

‘One business partner’s conduct detrimental to another’; Bombay HC grants interim relief u\/s 9 to aggrieved partner, in absence of efficacious remedy u\/s 17 of Arbitration Act, 1996<\/p>\n

In rival petitions before a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., filed by partners, i.e., petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 of respondent 3, a construction company (“Firm”), owing to certain differences, where the petitioner contended that the respondents 1 and 2 were dealing with the business of the Firm to his detriment. The contending parties had referred their case to arbitration as per the Partnership Deed between them, for which a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Court. The instant Court had issued a status quo order, effective till the final decision of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court noted that the petitioner had blatantly violated the status quo order by commencing construction at a Firm’s property. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s petition. However, the respondent’s petition for the appointment of a Court Receiver to safeguard the Firm property was allowed. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Order granting\/declining ex-parte interim measure in Commercial Arbitration Dispute is appealable under S. 37, A&C Act, 1996: Karnataka HC<\/p>\n

While considering the instant appeal, wherein the Court had to consider that whether an order refusing or granting ex-parte interim measure on an application under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (A&C Act) falling under ‘Commercial Arbitration Dispute’ is appealable order under Section 37 of the A&C Act; or whether such an appeal is barred under the proviso to Section 13(1A)<\/a> of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/a>, the Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman and Anant Ramanath Hegde*, JJ., opined that an order granting or declining ex-parte interim measure is appealable under Section 37 of A&C Act, even if a dispute under Section 9 of A&C Act is before the Commercial Court. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Also read:<\/b> Judicial Jigsaw: Never-Ending Conflicts and Interpretative Challenges of Section 29-A of the Arbitration Act<\/a><\/p>\n

‘Necessary ingredients of Sec. 11(6) clearly exist’; Delhi HC appoints Arbitrator to resolve dispute between Yuvraj Singh and real estate developer for claim of Rs. 1.38 Crores<\/p>\n

In a petition under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act’) filed by cricketer Yuvraj Singh seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes with respondents, C. Hari Shankar, J., referred the dispute to arbitration and appointed a sole arbitrator and observed that invocation of arbitration would not stand effaced just because a party had sought refund. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court | Arbitral Tribunal cannot award certain types of damages if they are specifically excluded by contractual clauses<\/p>\n

An intra court appeal was filed by Plus91 Security Solutions (appellant) under Section 37(1)(c)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> challenging a judgment dated 18-12-2023 passed by a Single Judge in a case filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act contesting an arbitral award dated 17-03-2023 wherein the Arbitral Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹8,43,07,904 in favour of the present appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the awarded amount with effect from 23-08-2019 till the date of payment along with a sum of ₹1,27,30,625 as costs in favour of the appellant. A Division Bench of Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ., dismissed the appeal and held that the award of damages on account of loss of profits is contrary to the terms of the contract (MOU) and thus, the impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

‘Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts’: Delhi HC<\/p>\n

C. HARI SHANKAR, J., dismissed a petition under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act’) filed against the Arbitrator’s Award, wherein, the petitioner was directed to execute a sale deed of the disputed property in favour of the present respondent on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioners should have been raised before the Arbitral Tribunal and that reappreciation of facts of a dispute was not permitted under Section 34 of the Act. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

No bar to invoke arbitration even if alternative remedy available under RERA Act: Gauhati High Court<\/p>\n

The present was an application under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the 1996 Act’) for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the Arbitration Clause executed between the parties, and an Arbitral Tribunal made up of three Arbitrators were to be constituted. Michael Zothankhuma, J., held that arbitration could be invoked by a party, in spite of the availability of the alternative remedy provided under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016<\/a> (‘RERA Act’). Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/b> Clash of the Courts — An analysis into the complications intertwined in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 while dealing with Jurisdiction over Arbitration Disputes<\/a><\/p>\n

‘One business partner’s conduct detrimental to another’; Bombay HC grants interim relief u\/s 9 to aggrieved partner, in absence of efficacious remedy u\/s 17 of Arbitration Act, 1996<\/p>\n

In rival petitions before a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., filed by partners, i.e., petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 of respondent 3, a construction company (“Firm”), owing to certain differences, where the petitioner contended that the respondents 1 and 2 were dealing with the business of the Firm to his detriment. The contending parties had referred their case to arbitration as per the Partnership Deed between them, for which a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Court. The instant Court had issued a status quo order, effective till the final decision of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court noted that the petitioner had blatantly violated the status quo order by commencing construction at a Firm’s property. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s petition. However, the respondent’s petition for the appointment of a Court Receiver to safeguard the Firm property was allowed. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Order granting\/declining ex-parte interim measure in Commercial Arbitration Dispute is appealable under S. 37, A&C Act, 1996: Karnataka HC<\/p>\n

While considering the instant appeal, wherein the Court had to consider that whether an order refusing or granting ex-parte interim measure on an application under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (A&C Act) falling under ‘Commercial Arbitration Dispute’ is appealable order under Section 37 of the A&C Act; or whether such an appeal is barred under the proviso to Section 13(1A)<\/a> of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/a>, the Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman and Anant Ramanath Hegde*, JJ., opined that an order granting or declining ex-parte interim measure is appealable under Section 37 of A&C Act, even if a dispute under Section 9 of A&C Act is before the Commercial Court. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

‘INDRP Policy does not require third parties to be heard’; Delhi High Court holds petition under S. 34<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> not maintainable<\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Act’) to challenge an award dated 04-04-2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed by Respondent 2, a Single Judge Bench of Pratibha M. Singh, J. held that the petitioner had no locus to file a petition under Section 34, and the same was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a party to the arbitral proceedings. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court dismisses Reliance’s petition against UIDAI; upholds impugned arbitral award in its entirety<\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Section 34<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Act’) by Reliance Communications Limited (‘Reliance’) to impugn an award passed by a Sole Arbitrator dated 23-02-2017, a Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. found that there was no merit in the two grounds that were advanced to challenge the impugned award and upheld the same. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court refers matter to Arbitrator based on arbitration clause in invoices issued for payment<\/p>\n

In a petition filed under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Act’) seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties in terms of an arbitration clause contained on invoices issued by the petitioner to the respondent, a Single Judge Bench of Prateek Jalan, J. allowed the petition and referred the disputes between the parties to arbitration while stating that despite being given opportunities, the respondent had not filed an affidavit to deny the case pleaded by the petitioner. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/b> One Step Back, Then Three Steps Back: The Unfavourable Pitch of Indian Arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n

Can allegations of coercion be looked into u\/s 11 of the Arbitration Act by the referral Court? Delhi HC explains<\/p>\n

In a petition under Section 11(6)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘the Act’) for reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration, where petitioner alleged coercion by respondent, C. Hari Shankar, J., appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes, while holding that an allegation of coercion was a pure question of fact which necessarily had to be examined by the arbitral tribunal. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

‘S. 21 notice not required if claim is filed in form of counterclaim for which reference has been made by Court’; Delhi HC dismisses Arbitration Applications<\/p>\n

In a batch of two appeals filed under Section 37(2)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Act’) and a petition under Section 14 of the Act arising out of orders dated 23-05-2023 and 17-10-2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Court vide order dated 22-07-2022, a Single Judge Bench of Pratibha M. Singh, J. held that there was no legal incapacity in the Sole Arbitrator to deal with the claims and counterclaims and his mandate did not deserve to be terminated. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

Calcutta High Court refuses to consider order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for binding Trial Judge to stay anti-arbitration suit<\/p>\n

In a revisional application directed against an order dated 17-01-2024, passed by the Commercial Judge at Rajarhat, North 24, Parganas in an anti-arbitration suit, a Single Judge Bench of Shampa Sarkar, J. dismissed the application and held that the suit was not required to be stayed since the plaint case and the reliefs claimed did not indicate that there was any monetary claim or any other claim that would be covered by Chapter 11 cases in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A quick recap of the latest rulings on Arbitration Law by the High Courts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67517,"featured_media":330016,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45673,70549],"tags":[24904,2633,10131,72744,17711,72745,72746,45675,31135],"class_list":["post-330009","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-columns-for-roundup","category-topic-wise-roundup","tag-appointment-of-arbitrator","tag-arbitral_award","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-arbitration-roundup","tag-arbitrator","tag-august","tag-july","tag-legal-roundup","tag-sole-arbitrator"],"yoast_head":"\nA roundup of top case laws on Arbitration from July and August 2024 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Arbitration Roundup from July and August 2024 with case laws on setting aside arbitral award; coercion, Section 11, INDRP policy\" \/>\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\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Arbitration Roundup from July and August 2024 with case laws on setting aside arbitral award; coercion, Section 11, INDRP policy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-09-04T04:30:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-09-04T05:08:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\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:title\" content=\"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024\" \/>\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=\"8 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\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/\",\"name\":\"A roundup of top case laws on Arbitration from July and August 2024 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-09-04T04:30:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-09-04T05:08:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\"},\"description\":\"Arbitration Roundup from July and August 2024 with case laws on setting aside arbitral award; coercion, Section 11, INDRP policy\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Arbitration Roundup\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024\"}]},{\"@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\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A roundup of top case laws on Arbitration from July and August 2024 | SCC Times","description":"Arbitration Roundup from July and August 2024 with case laws on setting aside arbitral award; coercion, Section 11, INDRP policy","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\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024","og_description":"Arbitration Roundup from July and August 2024 with case laws on setting aside arbitral award; coercion, Section 11, INDRP policy","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-09-04T04:30:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-09-04T05:08:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/","name":"A roundup of top case laws on Arbitration from July and August 2024 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp","datePublished":"2024-09-04T04:30:49+00:00","dateModified":"2024-09-04T05:08:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624"},"description":"Arbitration Roundup from July and August 2024 with case laws on setting aside arbitral award; coercion, Section 11, INDRP policy","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Arbitration Roundup"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/roundup-top-case-laws-on-arbitration-july-august-2024\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Top cases on Arbitration Law from July to August 2024"}]},{"@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\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/Arbitration-Roundup.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":325875,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/06\/arbitration-round-up-june-2024-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":330009,"position":0},"title":"Arbitration Roundup June 2024; Update yourself with all the latest Arbitration law updates in June 2024","author":"Editor","date":"July 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA quick recap of the latest rulings by the Supreme Court and High Courts- From the mandate of the arbitrator to the challenge of award passed by arbitrator\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Latest Arbitration laws June 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Latest-Arbitration-laws-June-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":328984,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/20\/delhi-hc-partially-sets-aside-arbitral-award-sole-arbitrator-failing-to-appreciate-contractual-terms-subsisting-between-parties\/","url_meta":{"origin":330009,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court partially sets aside Arbitral Award passed by Sole Arbitrator for failing to appreciate contractual terms subsisting between parties","author":"Editor","date":"August 20, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The direction given by the Sole Arbitrator to exclude the period from 31-03-2015 to 31-03-2017 for calculation of pre-litigation interest was contrary to the express terms in the Agreement made between the parties.","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\/2024\/02\/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\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294793,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/16\/delhi-hc-sets-aside-arbitral-award-by-arbitrator-de-jure-inability-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":330009,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award passed by Arbitrator having de jure inability to pass the award","author":"Arunima","date":"June 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The ineligibility of an Arbitrator goes to the root of his jurisdiction and the Arbitral Award cannot be considered as valid.","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\/05\/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\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":332460,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/04\/recap-top-arbitration-law-cases-invocation-bank-guarantees-arbitral-awards-non-signatories-september-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":330009,"position":3},"title":"Arbitration Law Roundup | A recap of top Arbitration Law cases in September 2024","author":"Editor","date":"October 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Read decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts in matters related to invocation of Bank Guarantees, Arbitral awards, Non-Signatories, and more.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"A recap of top Arbitration Law cases in September 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/A-recap-of-top-Arbitration-Law-cases-in-September-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/A-recap-of-top-Arbitration-Law-cases-in-September-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/A-recap-of-top-Arbitration-Law-cases-in-September-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/A-recap-of-top-Arbitration-Law-cases-in-September-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293987,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/06\/delhi-court-sets-aside-90-lakh-arbitral-award-bmw-india-financial-services\/","url_meta":{"origin":330009,"position":4},"title":"Delhi Court sets aside ₹90 lakh award granted in favour of BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.","author":"Editor","date":"June 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Unilateral Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator vitiates the proceedings of Arbitration.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Patiala House Courts","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-774.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":322604,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/21\/delhi-high-court-sets-aside-arbitral-award-passed-sole-arbitrator-unilaterally-appointed-violation-section12-arbitration-act-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":330009,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award due to violation of S. 12(5) Arbitration Act","author":"Editor","date":"May 21, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is well settled principle that unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is not permissible under the law\u201d","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\/2024\/02\/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\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330009","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\/67517"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=330009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/330009\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/330016"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=330009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=330009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=330009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}