Editor, Author at National Forum for Research in Arbitration Law

Editor

Profile

Email Address

editor@nfral.in

First Name

Editor

Last Name

Bio

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

The enquiry under Section 11 is limited to examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement; no conflict in Geo Miller case and Uttarakhand Purv Sainik case (Bombay High Court)(14 January 2020)

Shamsuddin v. Now Realty Ventures LLP, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 100 High Court of Bombay; Single judge bench; G. S. Patel, J.; Decided on 14 January 2020 Prefatory Section 11 (6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) was introduced by the 2015 Amendments. It provides that the Supreme

Panel of arbitrators must be broad based under the Voestalpine principle (Delhi High Court) (14 January 2020)

SMS Ltd. V. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 77 High Court of Delhi; Single judge bench; V. Kameswar Rao, J.; Decided on 14 January 2020 The arbitration clause in the contract between the parties provided, among others, that: – The tribunal shall consist of three

Objection as to a domestic award cannot be taken in the execution proceedings if no set-aside application was filed; CPC provisions which are inconsistent with ACA do not apply in execution under Section 36, ACA; Section 47, CPC is not attracted (Orissa High Court) (07 January 2020)

Birat Chandra Dagara v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Ltd.; 2020 SCC OnLine Ori 5 High Court of Orissa; Single-judge bench; Biswanath Rath, J.; decided on 7 January 2020 A single-judge bench of the High Court of Orissa has held that an objection as to execution of an award cannot be

Part I of the ACA, 1996 applies to statutory arbitrations under Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 except if there is any inconsistency between the two; power to order interim measures not inconsistent, hence powers under Section 17, ACA also available to the statutory Tribunal.

State of Gujarat and another v. Amber Builders; Civil Appeal No. 8307 of 2019 Supreme Court of India; 2-judge bench, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.; decided on 08 January 2020 Preface Section 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) makes Part I of the ACA applicable to

Court can grant relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 even if the document containing the arbitration agreement is insufficiently stamped (Bombay High Court) [Note: the issue is pending in the Supreme Court in another matter]

IREP Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. v. Tapaswi Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and another; 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 5719 Bombay High Court; Single-judge bench, Bombay High Court, G.S. Patel, J.; decided on 20 December 2019 Can a court grant relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”)

When the agreement specifically provides for appointment of an arbitral tribunal from a panel of serving or retired Railway Officers, the appointment should be in terms of the agreement; TRF case and Perkins case distinguished (Supreme Court of India)

Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO_MCML (JV), 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1635 Supreme Court of India, 3-judge bench, R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. decided on 17 December 2019 This is a recent addition to the list of cases on appointment of arbitrator versus the principles of

Constitution of arbitral tribunal comprising of serving officers of the respondent party is illegal and of no consequence; Voestalpine, TRF, Bharat Broadband and Perkins applied (Bombay High Court)

ITD Cementation India Ltd. v. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 5349 Bombay High Court, single–judge bench, G. S. Kulkarni, J.; decided on 12 December 2019 Under the arbitration clause, a “Standing Arbitral Tribunal” had to be formed within three months of the execution of the contract. The

Arbitrator has flexibility in determining procedure; decision with parties’ consent to do away with cross examination is okay; remand/remission of arbitral award (Supreme Court of India)

Jagjeet Singh Lyallpuri (through legal representatives) and others v. Unitop Apartments & Builders Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1541 Supreme Court, 3-judge bench, R. Banumathi, A. S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., Decided on 03 December 2019 This 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court has affirmed that the rules of procedure

Legal principles on appointment of sole arbitrator, as declared by the Supreme Court of India in various decisions, summarised (Bombay High Court)

Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 5163 Bombay High Court, single–judge bench, G. S. Patel, J.; decided on 04 December 2019 The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architect DPC v. HSSC (India) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517

Arbitration under Section 86 of Electricity Act can only be between licensees and generating companies; a plea of lack of inherent jurisdiction can be taken at any stage, even collateral proceedings (Supreme Court)

Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1683 Supreme Court, 3-judge bench, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ; decided on 28 November 2019 Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2013 (“Electricity Act”) empowers the State Electricity Regulatory Commission to adjudicate disputes

If preliminary issue (of claim being time barred) is decided on the basis of demurrer, the finding would remain a preliminary finding and cannot be foreclosed in trial; objection as to limitation is fundamental and substantive (Bombay High Court)

Bhavik Bhimjiyani v. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 5104 Bombay High Court, single-judge bench, Ujjal Bhuyan J.; decided on 04 December 2019 A plea that the claimant’s claim was barred by limitation was raised decided on the basis of demurrer. The arbitrator informed the

Editor

Recent Post by Editor