Impleading Parties in Arbitration: Unresolved Dilemmas
by Simarpreet Kaur Matharoo*
Arbitral Tribunal
‘Duty of Referral Court in post-award stage to prevent misuse of arbitration’; Delhi HC rejects plea by Jaiprakash Associates for second arbitration in Rs. 360 Crores claim
“Applying the ‘eye of the needle’ test, the Court has no hesitation in observing that the prima facie scrutiny of the facts of the present case, leads to a clear conclusion that there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is non-arbitrable.”
Question regarding substance of existence of agreement can only be determined by Arbitral Tribunal: Bombay HC
Even if it is presumed that signing an agreement with an arbitration clause can be regarded as submission of a (non-existent) dispute to arbitration, it will not follow that as a matter of law, since there will be no implied authority to execute such a contract. All these are issues that will pose mixed questions of fact and law and will relate to the substance of existence rather than the form of existence, i.e., a written agreement.
Under Section 11(6) A&C Act, Referral Court must limit its enquiry to the question of limitation period only: SC
Referral courts, at the stage of deciding an application for appointment of arbitrator, must not conduct an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question whether the claims raised by the applicant are time barred.”
Arbitration Act 1996 a self-contained code which does not distinguish between government and private entities: SC
The Court said that governmental entities must be treated in a similar fashion to private parties insofar as proceedings under the Arbitration Act are concerned, except where otherwise indicated by law.
Navigating “Twilight Issues” in International Arbitration: Professor George A. Bermann at the ICDR India Conference
This report summarizes the insights from the Keynote Address delivered by Professor George A. Bermann at the ICDR India Conference.
Delhi High Court refuses to interfere with Award passed by Arbitral Tribunal in petition by the Airports Authority of India
‘Courts, while evaluating a challenge under Section 34, would not be justified in faulting an award merely because an alternative view was possible or that, in their opinion, a more just conclusion could have been reached.’
Writ Jurisdiction and Arbitral Autonomy: Striking the Right Balance in India’s Arbitration Landscape
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
‘Section 29-A of Arbitration Act is procedural and discretion is given to parties to extend arbitration period further for 6 months’ ; Madras HC upholds arbitration award passed beyond 12 months
“The legislative intent of inserting Section 29-A of the Act is only for expeditious disposal of the arbitration proceedings and not to confer a new defence upon an unsuccessful party to challenge the award and to reopen the entire proceedings.”
‘Necessary ingredients of Sec. 11(6) clearly exist’; Delhi HC appoints Arbitrator to resolve dispute between Yuvraj Singh and real estate developer for claim of Rs. 1.38 Crores
“Deletion of party is an issue to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, it cannot be looked into by the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act”
Panel Paradox: A Closer Look at Arbitrator Appointments from Interested Party Panels
by Abhisaar Bairagi*, Milind Sharma** and Ausaf Ayyub***
Delhi High Court | Arbitral Tribunal cannot award certain types of damages if they are specifically excluded by contractual clauses
The Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the specific terms and limitations outlined in contractual clauses. This decision underscores the importance of clear contractual provisions and their binding nature on arbitral tribunals, reaffirming that such limitations must be respected and enforced in arbitral awards.
‘Situation not emergent to justify parallel adjudication by Court’: Delhi High Court dismisses Section 9 Arbitration petition due to Lack of Urgency
“When the Arbitral Tribunal is in seisin of disputes between parties, there is the pernicious possibility of any observation being made by the Court influencing the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal”
Can allegations of coercion be looked into u/s 11 of the Arbitration Act by the referral Court? Delhi HC explains
“Consequent on introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the Supreme Court has in several decisions held that the jurisdiction of the referral Court is now circumscribed.”
Can mandate of arbitral tribunal be extended u/s 29A of the Arbitration Act, even after expiry of such mandate? Delhi HC answers
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers Courts to extend mandate of arbitral tribunals beyond the specified limitation.
‘Process for redressal of grievances for refund of amount already initiated through arbitration’; Delhi HC refuses relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The Delhi High Court said that the petitioner had no prima facie right, title, and interest in the allotted units, and a case was not made out to restrain the respondents from creating any third-party interest.
Can Arbitration proceedings be terminated on claimant’s failure to request Arbitral Tribunal to fix a date for hearing? SC answers
“The abandonment of the claim can be either express or implied. The abandonment cannot be readily inferred. There is an implied abandonment when admitted or proved facts are so clinching that the only inference which can be drawn is of the abandonment.”
Pre-Award, Pendente Lite, and Post-Award Interest in Arbitration: Decoding the Supreme Court’s Perspective
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
2024 SCC Vol. 4 Part 4
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(14) & Expln. thereto [as they stood prior to the 2019 Amendment Act], 31(8), 31-A,