Editor, Author at National Forum for Research in Arbitration Law

Editor

Profile

Email Address

editor@nfral.in

First Name

Editor

Last Name

Bio

NV International overruled; limitation governing appeals under Section 37 ACA clarified

Government of Maharashtra v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and connected matters Court: Supreme Court of India | Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 995 of 2021 and two other connected matters | Citation: Currently not available | Bench: RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy JJ |

Power under Articles 226/227of the Constitution must be exercised in an arbitration case with exceptional rarity, where one party is left remediless, or a clear bad faith is shown by one of the parties. (Supreme Court)

Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Nigam Limited and Another Court: Supreme Court of India | Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 14665 of 2015 | Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 8 | Bench: NV Ramana, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy JJ | Date of decision: 6 January 2021 Bhaven

The provisions in the SIAC Rules for emergency arbitration do not violate Indian laws (Delhi High Court)

Future Retail Limited v. Amazon.Com Investment Holdings LLC and others Court: Delhi High Court| Case number: CS (Comm) 493 of 2020 | Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1636 |Bench: Mukta Gupta J | Date: 21 December 2020 | Final or interim decision: Interim Appellate proceedings: Appeal filed by Amazon pending

Existence and validity and of an arbitration agreement, and arbitrability of the dispute can be examined in proceedings under Section 8 and Section 11 ACA. The court should interfere in limited cases where it is plainly arguable that the arbitration agreement is non-existent, invalid or the disputes non-arbitrable. (Supreme Court)

Vidya Drolia and others v. Durga Trading Corporation (Vidya Drolia II) Court: Supreme Court of India | Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2402 of 2019 | Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1018 | Bench: NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari JJ | Date of decision: 14 December 2020 |

Clause restricting choice of one party to select the sole arbitrator from a panel of three names is okay. Voestalpine (2-judge bench SC) cannot be relied on because of CORE (3-judge bench SC). Passages in Voestalpine about broad-based panel were merely suggestions (Delhi High Court)

Iworld Business Solutions Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited Court: Delhi High Court| Case number: OMP (T) Comm. 71 of 2020 | Citation: Not available currently |Bench: C Hari Shankar J | Date: 04 December 2020 Applying the decision of the Supreme Court in CORE (cited below), a

Is dismissal of a set-aside petition on limitation appealable? Though answering no, the Delhi High Court granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.

Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Court: Delhi High Court| Case number: FAO (OS) Comm. No. 68 of 2020 | Citation: Not available currently |Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon JJ | Date: 04 December 2020 Is an order dismissing a set-aside petition filed under

Choice of foreign law (laws of UK) by two Indian parties as the law governing the main contract is enforceable because a foreign element (high seas sale) was involved in the transaction (Delhi High Court)

Dholi Spintex Pvt. Limited v. Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. Court: Delhi High Court| Case number: CS (Comm.) 286 of 2020 | Citation: Not available currently |Bench: Mukta Gupta J | Date: 24 November 2020 A. The Context The concept of freedom of contract is well recognized.

Indian parties can arbitrate in a foreign seat. The resultant award would be a foreign award enforceable under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Gujarat High Court)

GE Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd. v. PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Court: Gujarat High Court| Case number: Petition under Arbitration Act No. 131 and 134 of 2019 | Citation: Not available currently |Bench: Viren Vaishnav J | Date: 03 November 2020 A. The ruling summarised The definition of

Formal requirements of an arbitration agreement are satisfied even if it is not signed, but communications establish that the parties are ad idem on the arbitration clause (Delhi High Court)

Chaitanya Construction Company v. Delhi Jal Board Court: High Court of Delhi | Case number: OMP (T) (Comm) 35 /2020 | Citation: Not available currently | Bench: Rekha Palli J | Date: 01 September 2020 A. The written form requirements of an arbitration agreement “Like all other types of

Power to grant interim relief should not be exercised before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal unless the matter cannot await the constitution

Avantha Holdings Limited v. Vistra ITCL India Limited Court: Delhi High Court | Case Number: OMP (I) COMM 177 of 2020 | Citation: Not currently available | Judge: C Hari Shankar J | Date: 14 August 2020 | Available at: Delhi High Court’s website [http://164.100.69.66/jsearch/] (“inadvertent clerical errors” corrected by

An award based on put-option in a contract does not violate the public policy of India (Bombay High Court)

Banyan Tree Growth Capital LLC v. Axiom Cordages Limited and others, Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 476 of 2019 Bombay High Court| single-judge bench | GS Kulkarni J | 30 April 2020 Banyan, a Mauritius based fund, invested USD fifty million into Axiom Cordages Limited after negotiations with Axion’s promoters. The

The seat of the arbitration can be deduced from the conduct of not raising objections as to conduct of arbitration proceedings at a particular territory (Bombay High Court)

Omprakash and others v. Vijay Dwarkada Varma MANU/MH/0543/202 High Court of Bombay (Nagpur); single-judge bench, Manish Pitale J decided on 27 April 2020 A partnership deed had an arbitration clause. The partners had a dispute. One of them applied for appointment of an arbitrator and the High Court made the

Bombay High Court’s ad-interim order based on an Emergency Award passed in a SIAC Arbitration

Plus Holdings Limited v. Xeitgeist Entertainment Group Limited and others Bombay High Court; single-judge bench, GS Kulkarni J; 07 March 2020 GS Kulkarni J of the Bombay High Court recently passed an ad-interim injunction under Section 9 ACA recognising and thus giving effect to an Emergency Award made by

If a court determines that the seat is somewhere else, it has no jurisdiction even if cause of action arose in its jurisdiction and even if before the determination of seat, a prior application had been filed before it (Supreme Court of India)

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. NHPC Ltd. and others, MANU/SC/0299/2020 Supreme Court of India; 3-judge bench, RF Nariman, S Ravindra Bhat, and V. Ramasubramanian JJ; decided on 04 March 2020 A 3-judge bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman, S Ravindra Bhat and V Ramasubramanian JJ has reiterated, following BGS SGS

A suit for an anti-arbitration injunction on the ground that the arbitrator does not have jurisdiction is not maintainable given the Supreme Court’s decision in Kvaerner Cementation India Limited v. Bajranglal Agarwal (2012) 5 SCC 215. It is a matter for the arbitrator to decide. (Delhi High Court) (currently before a division bench in appeal)

Dr Bina Modi v. Lalit Modi and others, CS(OS) 84/2020 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J.; Decided on 3 March 2020 A. PREFACE: SEEKING ANTI-ARBITRATION INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE IS NOT ARBITRABLE–RELYING ON VIMAL KISHOR SHAH AND VIDYA DROLIA CASE. The question before the High

Editor

Recent Post by Editor