Submission Type : Updates

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

     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

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

Mere expression “place of arbitration” is not determinative of the “seat” of arbitration. The intention of the parties as to the “seat” should be determined from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties. (Supreme Court of India)

     Updates by Nishant Gupta

Mankastu Impex Private Limited v AirVisual Limited 2020 SCC OnLine SC 301 Supreme Court of India; 3-judge bench, R Banumathi, AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy JJ, decided on 05 March 2020   A.  THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE Mankastu, an Indian company, and AirVisual, a Hong Kong company, had a memorandum

 Continue reading
Categories: Arbitral seat |  Place of arbitration |  Seat of arbitration |  Section 20 |  Venue of arbitration  

If a court determines that the seat is somewhere else, it has no jurisdiction even if cause of action arose in its jurisdiction and even if before the determination of seat, a prior application had been filed before it (Supreme Court of India)

     Updates by Editor

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. NHPC Ltd. and others, MANU/SC/0299/2020 Supreme Court of India; 3-judge bench, RF Nariman, S Ravindra Bhat, and V. Ramasubramanian JJ; decided on 04 March 2020   A 3-judge bench of Rohinton Fali Nariman, S Ravindra Bhat and V Ramasubramanian JJ has reiterated, following BGS SGS

 Continue reading
Categories: Arbitral seat |  Court |  Exclusive jurisdiction |  Section 2(1)(e)  

No patent illegality or perversity where rate not fixed in the agreement was fixed by the arbitrator on common business sense and proposals submitted by the respondent; Award patently illegal where the contract was interpreted based on a circular that was not in evidence (Delhi High Court)

     Updates by Simran Patel

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Aksh Optifibre Limited, OMP (Comm.) 131 of 2017 Mohan Steels Limited v. Steel Authority of India (SAIL), OMP 488 of 2015 High Court of Delhi; single-judge bench, Jyoti Singh J, decided on 04 March 2020   On 04 March 2020, Jyoti Singh J of the

 Continue reading
Categories: Application for setting aside award |  Perverse award |  Recourse against arbitral award |  Section 34 (2A) |  Section 36  

Appealing against an order closing the right to file written statement does not disentitle a party to seek reference to arbitration (Delhi High Court)

     Updates by Kriti

Shri Chand Construction and Apartments Private Ltd. and another v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.; 2020 SCC OnLine Del 472 High Court of Delhi; Single-judge bench, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J, decided on 04 March 2020     A. PREFACE: SECTION 8 ACA, HOW TO APPLY AND WHEN TO APPLY TO

 Continue reading
Categories: "First statement on the substance of the dispute" |  "Not later than the date of submitting |  Arbitration agreement  |  Arbitration dispute |  Limitation |  Remove term: Power to refer parties to arbitration Power to refer parties to arbitration |  Waiver  

A party asserting that the arbitration agreement is not sufficiently stamped must establish, with reference to the rule, the basis of the insufficiency.

     Updates by Kushager Relhan

Nirman Panchvati Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Wellcity Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and others (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109727706/) Bombay High Court; Single-judge bench, GS Patel J, decided on 02 March 2020   A. PREFACE On 10 April 2019, in Garware Wall Ropes v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd., (2019) 9 SCC

 Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Arbitration agreement  |  Section 11 |  Stamp duty |  Stamping of arbitration agreement |  The Garware Rule  

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)

     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

 Continue reading
Categories: Application for setting aside award |  Fundamental policy of Indian law |  Perverse award |  Public Policy of India |  Recourse against arbitral award |  Section 34  

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?  

Party appointed sole arbitrator is ineligible in view of the Supreme Court’s 2-judge bench decision in Perkins case; the 3-judge bench decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification distinguished (Delhi High Court)(20 January 2020)

     Updates by Nishant Gupta

Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v. SITI Cable Network Limited, O.M.P (T) (COMM.) 109/2019 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, Jyoti Singh J.; Decided on 20.01.2020 An agreement of August 2015 between the parties provided for resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator appointed by Siti Cable (defined in the arbitration

 Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Entry 1 Seventh Schedule |  Impartiality |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Independence of arbitrator |  Neutrality of arbitrator |  Party appointed sole arbitrator |  Party autonomy |  Section 12 |  Section 14 |  Section 15 |  Termination of mandate |  Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator |  The CORE principle |  The Perkins principle |  Voestalpine  

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)

     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

 Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction |  Existence of arbitration agreement |  Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal |  Kompetenz-kompetenz |  Limitation |  Limitation and jurisdictional question |  Section 11 |  Section 11 (6A)  

  Older Posts