Kompetenz-kompetenz Archives – National Forum for Research in Arbitration Law

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

August 22, 2020 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

Quippo Construction Equipment Limited v Janardan Nirman Pvt. Limited 2020 SCC Online SC 419

June 2, 2020 Case Comment by Prashant Mishra , Nishant Gupta

Supreme Court of India | 2-judge bench| UU Lalit and Vineet Saran JJ | 29 April 2020 The Quippo judgment presents a problem of exposition. The primary question was about the jurisdiction of the court to hear a set-aside application against an award. The question was decided on the principle of waiver.

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)

March 29, 2020 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

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)

January 30, 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

Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1518 Supreme Court of India, 2-judge bench, Ajay Rastogi and Indu Malhotra, JJ., decided on 26 November 2019 The petitioner invoked arbitration in September 2016 and later applied to the Madhya Pradesh High Court for appointment

Category: Kompetenz-kompetenz

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

Quippo Construction Equipment Limited v Janardan Nirman Pvt. Limited 2020 SCC Online SC 419

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)

An issue as to jurisdiction like limitation should be decided by the arbitrator, not court considering an application under Section 11 to appoint arbitrator (Supreme Court of India)