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  

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)

     Update by Editor

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

Continue reading
Categories: Fifth Schedule |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Section 11 |  Section 12 |  Seventh Schedule |  The Perkins principle |  The TRF principle |  The Voestalpine principle  

Appointment of arbitrators in multi-party arbitration—when will post-Dutco reforms come to India?

     Blog by Umang Bhat Nair

A. ACSA Global GVK Airport—a test case for appointment in multiple-respondents scenario It was reported[1] in June this year (2020) that in ACSA Global Limited v. GVK Airport Holdings Limited and others[2] the Supreme Court of India will be considering the issue of appointment of arbitrators in a multi-party arbitration.

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Dutco |  Section 11  

An arbitration clause which says disputes “may” be referred to arbitration is not a binding arbitration agreement; the pre-arbitral mechanism of discussion need not be followed when it is clear parties do not intend any settlement (Bombay High Court)

     Update by Nayanikaa Shukla

Quick Heal v. NCS Computers and another Court: Bombay High Court | Case Number: Arbitration Petition No.43 of 2018| Citation: Not currently available | Judge: SK Kathawalla J | Date: 05 June 2020 | Available at: Website of Bombay High Court https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in A. THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE STATED THAT THE DISPUTE

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Arbitration agreement  |  Pre-arbitral mechanism |  Pre-arbitral procedure |  Section 11  

Transferee of a business undertaking has a right to invoke arbitration under the arbitration clause of an agreement which formed part of the business transfer (originally executed by the transferor) (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Anushree Chandra

M/s Distribution Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s BPB Builders Pvt. Ltd. Court: High Court of Delhi | Case Number: ARB.P. 383/2019 | Citation: Currently not available| Judge: Jyoti Singh J| Date: 12 May 2020 | Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69677882/   ETA Engineering and BPB Builders entered into an agreement on 23

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Business transfer |  Section 11