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  

The argument that there was a change of counsel, and new counsel took time given the complex and technical nature of the matter is not a “sufficient cause” to entertain a set-aside application filed after three-months (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Khushbu Turki

Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Limited Court: High Court of Delhi | Case Number: OMP (COMM) 444/2019 | Citation: Currently not available | Judge: Jyoti Singh J| Date: 4 June 2020 | Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117236752/   THE MAXIMUM LIMITATION TO FILE A SET ASIDE APPLICATION IS THREE MONTHS, AND ON COURT’S DISCRETION, ANOTHER THIRTY

Continue reading
Categories: Application for setting aside award |  Condonation of delay |  Limitation |  Limitation for setting aside |  Section 34 |  Section 34(3) |  Sufficient cause  

An application under Section 39 ACA lies only when the award has been made, but not physically delivered (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Anushree Chandra

M/S Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Court: High Court of Delhi | Case Number: ARB.P. 377/2019 | Citation: Currently not available| Judge: V Kameswar Rao J| Date: 5 June 2020 | Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97571994/   SECTION 39 OF ACA GIVES TO THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL LIEN ON THE AWARD FOR ANY UNPAID COSTS.

Continue reading
Categories: Arbitral Fees |  Section 39  

The appointment of sole-arbitrator by the Government in a dispute where one party is a government company (a public sector undertaking) is valid (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

     Update by Arushi Bhagotra

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court | Case Number: Civil Revision 7191 of 2019 | Citation: MANU/PH/0428/2020 | Currently not available | Judge: Alka Sarin J | Date: 03 June 2020 | Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/157439483/ THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND APPOINTMENT OF

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Bias |  Failure or impossibility to act |  Fifth Schedule |  Grounds of challenge |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Neutrality of arbitrator |  Right to appoint arbitrator |  Right to nominate arbitrator |  Section 12 |  Section 13 |  Section 14 |  Seventh Schedule |  Sole arbitrator |  Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator |  The Perkins principle |  The TRF principle  

The test of being unable to present one’s case concerns matters outside party’s control. Enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused when the party chose not to avail the opportunity to present its case before the arbitral tribunal (Supreme Court of India)

     Update by Kushager Relhan , Prashant Mishra

Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 479 (“Centrotrade III”) Court: Supreme Court of India | Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2562 of  | Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 479 | Judges: RF Nariman, S Ravindra Bhat and V Ramasubramanian JJ | Date: 02

Continue reading
Categories: “Otherwise unable to present his case” |  Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards |  Enforcement  |  Section 48 |  Section 48(1)(b)  

  Newer Posts      Older Posts