{"id":369967,"date":"2025-12-16T17:00:40","date_gmt":"2025-12-16T11:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=369967"},"modified":"2025-12-17T18:06:47","modified_gmt":"2025-12-17T12:36:47","slug":"madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/","title":{"rendered":"Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to lift corporate veil: Madras High Court modifies arbitral award"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/span> While hearing an arbitration petition challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator, a Single Judge Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh<\/span>, J., stated that the Arbitral Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to lift the corporate veil since its jurisdiction is confined by the arbitration agreement. The Court held that the Arbitrator had exceeded jurisdiction by lifting the corporate veil and fastening liability on an entity not party to the agreement, which is impermissible under Section 34(2)(b)(ii)<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (‘Arbitration and Conciliation Act’).<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court modified the award and directed repayment of Rs 2.50 Crores along with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 11-12-2015 till the date of actual payment, while setting aside the portion of the award granting damages of Rs 3.52 Crores.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) dated 11-12-2015, under which financial assistance of Rs 2.50 Crores was provided to enable submission of a performance bank guarantee of Rs 3.52 Crores to the Kolkata Port Trust. The grievance was that the amount was not repaid and the cheque issued was dishonoured, leading to arbitration proceedings.<\/p>\n

The respondent contended that the arrangement was not a mere financial transaction but part of a larger agreement to execute the work order, with obligations to supply equipment and share profits and losses. It was alleged that breach of the MoU by failure to provide equipment led to forfeiture of the performance bank guarantee and termination of the contract, giving rise to a counter claim of Rs 75 Crores.<\/p>\n

The petitioner argued that the MoU only contemplated financial assistance, that there was no obligation to supply equipment, and that the Arbitrator wrongly exercised jurisdiction by lifting the corporate veil. It was further contended that damages were fixed without pleadings or proof, contrary to Section 73<\/a> of the Contract Act, 1872<\/a> (‘the Act’).<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court emphasised that arbitration rests on consent and the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is limited to the agreement between the parties. The Court highlighted that the MoU dated 11-12-2015 constituted an independent financial arrangement, as confirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the Arbitrator had wrongly applied the doctrine of alter ego by treating another entity as the petitioner’s sister concern and thereby fastening liability, which was impermissible.<\/p>\n

The Court highlighted that the Arbitral Tribunal certainly does not have the jurisdiction to lift the corporate veil since its jurisdiction is confined by the arbitration agreement. The Court noted that even in a case of determining as to whether one entity is the alter ego of the other, this is conceptually the same as lifting the corporate veil. The Court observed that such an exercise can never be undertaken by the Arbitral Tribunal, which is a creature under an agreement with a limited jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties to the agreement as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that damages cannot be awarded without proper pleadings and proof of actual loss. The Court stressed that a mere breach without injury or loss is not actionable per se under Section 73 of the Act, and that the Arbitrator had no basis to fix damages at Rs 3.52 Crores merely because the performance bank guarantee was encashed. The Court further noted that the award of damages was unsustainable and had to be interfered with.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the petition, set aside the invalid portion of the award, and directed repayment of Rs 2.50 Crores along with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 11-12-2015 till the date of actual payment.<\/p>\n

[Sugesan Transport (P) Ltd. v. E.C. Bose & Co. (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 10996<\/a>, decided on 26-11-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> Nithyaesh Natraj for Nithyaesh & Vaibhav<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> J. Ravikumar<\/p>\n

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Arbitrator went wrong in applying the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil\/ determining another entity as the alter ego and fastening the liability on the petitioner.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67537,"featured_media":369968,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[58059,3226,40741,55008,3755,95025,61617,95027,2567,2665,84117,95026],"class_list":["post-369967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-alter-ego","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-corporate-veil","tag-damages","tag-financial-arrangement","tag-justice-n-anand-venkatesh","tag-lifting-of-the-arbitration","tag-Madras_High_Court","tag-MoU","tag-section-34-arbitration-act","tag-section-73-indian-contract-act"],"yoast_head":"\nArbitral Tribunal cannot lift corporate veil: Madras HC| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Madras High Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift the corporate veil and modified the award, directing repayment of Rs 2.50 Crores with interest.\" \/>\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\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to lift corporate veil: Madras High Court modifies arbitral award\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras High Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift the corporate veil and modified the award, directing repayment of Rs 2.50 Crores with interest.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-12-16T11:30:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-17T12:36:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Arbitral-Tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"533\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to lift corporate veil: Madras High Court modifies arbitral award\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 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\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/\",\"name\":\"Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift corporate veil: Madras HC| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Arbitral-Tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-16T11:30:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-17T12:36:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\"},\"description\":\"Madras High Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift the corporate veil and modified the award, directing repayment of Rs 2.50 Crores with interest.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Arbitral-Tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Arbitral-Tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil.webp\",\"width\":800,\"height\":533,\"caption\":\"Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift corporate veil\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to lift corporate veil: Madras High Court modifies arbitral award\"}]},{\"@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\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\",\"name\":\"Soumya Yadav\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Soumya Yadav\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift corporate veil: Madras HC| SCC Times","description":"Madras High Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift the corporate veil and modified the award, directing repayment of Rs 2.50 Crores with interest.","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\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to lift corporate veil: Madras High Court modifies arbitral award","og_description":"Madras High Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift the corporate veil and modified the award, directing repayment of Rs 2.50 Crores with interest.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-12-16T11:30:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-17T12:36:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Arbitral-Tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Soumya Yadav","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to lift corporate veil: Madras High Court modifies arbitral award","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Soumya Yadav","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/","name":"Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift corporate veil: Madras HC| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Arbitral-Tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil.webp","datePublished":"2025-12-16T11:30:40+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-17T12:36:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7"},"description":"Madras High Court held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift the corporate veil and modified the award, directing repayment of Rs 2.50 Crores with interest.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Arbitral-Tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Arbitral-Tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil.webp","width":800,"height":533,"caption":"Arbitral Tribunal cannot lift corporate veil"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/16\/madras-hc-arbitral-tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to lift corporate veil: Madras High Court modifies arbitral award"}]},{"@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\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7","name":"Soumya Yadav","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Soumya Yadav"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Arbitral-Tribunal-cannot-lift-corporate-veil.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":283204,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/04\/madras-high-court-non-signatories-can-join-as-parties-to-arbitral-proceedings-if-they-are-the-alter-ego-of-the-signatory-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":369967,"position":0},"title":"Madras High Court| Non-signatories can join as parties to arbitral proceedings, if they are the \u2018alter ego\u2019 of the signatory","author":"Editor","date":"February 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to join respondents 3 to 5 as parties to arbitral proceedings, as they do not qualify as \u201calter egos\u201d of the first respondent or as successors-in-interest.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Madras-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":242028,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/08\/the-company-its-veil-and-the-arbitration-of-disputes\/","url_meta":{"origin":369967,"position":1},"title":"The company, its veil and the arbitration of disputes","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Mikhail Behl* and Anupam Surve**","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\/2021\/01\/company-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/company-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/company-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/company-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/company-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":280459,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/arbitration-dossier-2021-22a-snapshot-of-major-developments-in-lex-arbitri\/","url_meta":{"origin":369967,"position":2},"title":"Arbitration Dossier (2021-22)| A Snapshot of Major Developments in Lex Arbitri","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Chakrapani Misra, Sameer Bindra and Varshini Sunder Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 88","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Arbitration Dossier","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image122.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":260715,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/28\/does-arbitral-tribunal-have-exclusive-jurisdiction-to-settle-disputes-relating-to-works-contract-in-state-of-madhya-pradesh-under-the-scheme-of-m-p-madhyastham-adhikaran-adhiniyam\/","url_meta":{"origin":369967,"position":3},"title":"Does Arbitral Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to \u201cworks contract\u201d in State of Madhya Pradesh under the scheme of M.P Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983? MP HC explains","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ., while holding that M.P Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 mandates exclusive jurisdiction to Tribunal for settling \u201cworks contract\u201d added that Section 34(2)(b)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, provides that an arbitral award would be\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":257182,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/17\/substitute-arbitrator\/","url_meta":{"origin":369967,"position":4},"title":"If arbitrator becomes functus officio, can provisions under Ss. 14 and 15 of the A&C Act to appoint substitute arbitrator be invoked? Allahabad HC decides","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court: Noting the significance of Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Jayant Banerji, J., expressed that, If the arbitrator had been rendered functus officio, there existed no occasion to invoke the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act for appointing a\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":291009,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/01\/section-34-of-arbitration-act-a-well-reasoned-arbitral-award-cannot-be-interfered-with-delhi-high-court-on-limited-scope-of-interference-legal-news-legal-research-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":369967,"position":5},"title":"[Section 34 of Arbitration Act] A well-reasoned arbitral award cannot be interfered with: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"May 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of Contract, and the Contract is the only basis on which the Learned Tribunal should adjudicate, apart from the general provisions of law and jurisprudence.","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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369967","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\/67537"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=369967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369967\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/369968"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=369967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=369967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=369967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}