Category: Competence Competence

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)

     Update by Editor , assisted by Garima Mittal

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

 Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Article 226 |  Article 227 |  Competence Competence |  Patent lack of inherent jurisdiction |  Perversity |  Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court |  Section 16 |  Section 17 |  Section 37 |  Section 9 |  Self-contained code |  Special act v. general act |  Speedy disposal |  Test of perversity |  Time limit  

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)

     Update by Editor

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 |

 Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Arbitrability |  Boghara Polyfab principle |  Booz Allen principle |  Competence Competence |  Erga omnes effect |  Existence of arbitration agreement |  Formal validity of arbitration agreements |  In personam |  In rem |  Nonarbitrability |  Power to refer parties to arbitration |  Public policy |  Section 11 |  Section 16 |  Section 8 |  Substantive validity |  Test of arbitrability |  Validity  

Civil courts have the power to grant an anti-arbitration injunction, but sparingly, and in line with principles outlined in paragraph 24 of Modi Entertainment Network

     Update by Simran Patel

Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC Court: Bombay High Court | Case Number: CS No. 59 of 2020 (Ad-interim order)| Citation: Not currently available | Judge: Shekhar B Saraf J | Date: 12 August 2020 | Available at: Bombay High Court’s website Disagreeing with Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J’s decision in

 Continue reading
Categories: Anti-arbitration injunction  |  Arbitrability |  Competence Competence |  Kompetenz-kompetenz |  Nonarbitrability |  Section 16 |  Who decides question?  

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)

     Updates by Editor

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

 Continue reading
Categories: Anti-arbitration injunction  |  Arbitrability |  Competence Competence |  Kompetenz-kompetenz |  Nonarbitrability |  Section 16 |  Who decides question?