Extension of time limit for an arbitral award—a case comment on Lots Shipping v. Cochin Port Trust and DDA v. Tarachand

     Case Comment by Prashant Mishra , Avantika Verma

M/S Lots Shipping Company Limited v. Cochin Port Trust, OP (C).No.586 OF 2018(O); Kerala High Court | 2-judge bench| CK Abdul Rehim and Shircy V JJ| 28 April 2020  DDA v. Tarachand Sumit Construction Co., OMP (Misc.) (Comm.) 236 of 2019Delhi High Court | Jyoti Singh J| 12 May 2020

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Section 11 |  Section 14 |  Section 15 |  Section 2(1)(e) |  Section 29A |  Substitution of arbitrator |  Termination of mandate |  Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator |  Time limit for arbitral award  

A party asserting that the arbitration agreement is not sufficiently stamped must establish, with reference to the rule, the basis of the insufficiency.

     Updates by Kushager Relhan

Nirman Panchvati Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Wellcity Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109727706/) Bombay High Court; Single-judge bench, GS Patel J, decided on 02 March 2020   A. PREFACE On 10 April 2019, in Garware Wall Ropes v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd., (2019) 9 SCC

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Arbitration agreement  |  Section 11 |  Stamp duty |  Stamping of arbitration agreement |  The Garware Rule  

Party appointed sole arbitrator is ineligible in view of the Supreme Court’s 2-judge bench decision in Perkins case; the 3-judge bench decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification distinguished (Delhi High Court)(20 January 2020)

     Updates by Nishant Gupta

Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v. SITI Cable Network Limited, O.M.P (T) (COMM.) 109/2019 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, Jyoti Singh J.; Decided on 20.01.2020 An agreement of August 2015 between the parties provided for resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator appointed by Siti Cable (defined in the arbitration

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Entry 1 Seventh Schedule |  Impartiality |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Independence of arbitrator |  Neutrality of arbitrator |  Party appointed sole arbitrator |  Party autonomy |  Section 12 |  Section 14 |  Section 15 |  Termination of mandate |  Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator |  The CORE principle |  The Perkins principle |  Voestalpine  

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)

     Updates by Editor

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

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction |  Existence of arbitration agreement |  Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal |  Kompetenz-kompetenz |  Limitation |  Limitation and jurisdictional question |  Section 11 |  Section 11 (6A)  

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

     Updates by Editor

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

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Broad based panel |  Fifth Schedule |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Neutrality |  Party appointed arbitrator |  Section 12 |  Section 14 |  Section 15 |  Seventh Schedule |  Voestalpine principle