Section 34 Archives – National Forum for Research in Arbitration Law

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)

June 1, 2020 Update by Editor

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

Considering and allowing a time-barred claim makes the award contrary to public policy of India, and irrational, and perverse, and lacking in judicial approach

April 24, 2020 Updates by Saurabh Tiwari

KM Suresh Babu v. Sundaram Finance Limited Madras High Court; single-judge bench, M Sundar J; 05 March 2020 A. THE BACKGROUND Sundaram Finance (SF) financed a truck to Suresh under a hire-purchase contract. Suresh defaulted on the repayment of instalments on 06 April 1999. SF seized the truck on 17

Categories: Fundamental policy of Indian law | Limitation | Patent Illegality | Public Policy of India | Section 34

Tags : Perversity

Award set aside by Delhi High Court in an appeal, overturning the finding of the arbitral tribunal and a single judge who had dismissed the set-aside application, on the ground that the reasoning of the tribunal was perverse and hence in conflict with the public policy of India (Delhi High Court)

April 2, 2020 Updates by Avantika Verma

MMTC Limited v. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal, FAO (OS) 532/2015 Delhi High Court; 2-judge bench, G.S. Sistani and Anup Jairam Bhambhani JJ.; decided on 02 March 2020 A bench of two judges of the Delhi High Court set aside, in this case, a domestic award in an appeal under Section

Standard for setting aside arbitral award; permissibility of re-appreciating findings of fact in set-aside proceedings; claim for damages et. al. (Delhi High Court) (7 January 2020)

January 29, 2020 Updates by Avantika Verma , Aimen Reshi

G+H Schallschutz v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited 2020 SCC OnLine Del 19; single-judge bench, Sanjeev Narula, J.; Decided on 07 January 2020 The Dispute Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (“BHEL”) signed a contract with the Public Electric Company, Yemen to construct a power plant. For manufacture of some equipments required in

Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1656 Supreme Court of India, 3- Judge Bench, N.V. Ramana, Ajay Rastogi, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., Decided on 18 December 2019 The Supreme Court has re-emphasised that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) the award must

Category: Section 34

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)

Considering and allowing a time-barred claim makes the award contrary to public policy of India, and irrational, and perverse, and lacking in judicial approach

Award set aside by Delhi High Court in an appeal, overturning the finding of the arbitral tribunal and a single judge who had dismissed the set-aside application, on the ground that the reasoning of the tribunal was perverse and hence in conflict with the public policy of India (Delhi High Court)

Standard for setting aside arbitral award; permissibility of re-appreciating findings of fact in set-aside proceedings; claim for damages et. al. (Delhi High Court) (7 January 2020)

Standard of setting aside; facets of a reasoned award; power of remission et. al. (Supreme Court)