Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“It is palpably clear that the language of the purported arbitration clause must evidence an unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal intention to refer the disputes to arbitration, leaving no room for doubt that parties chose arbitration as their only mode of resolution of disputes.”
by Shruti Sabharwal† and Ujval Mohan††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 65
“The Tribunal provided reasons for the findings delivered, and there was no perversity apparent on the face of the record or which goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the impugned Award could not be said to be patently illegal.”
by Vasanth Rajasekaran†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 57
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Megha Saha††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 41
The Arbitral Tribunal is a creature of Contract, and the Contract is the only basis on which the Learned Tribunal should adjudicate, apart from the general provisions of law and jurisprudence.
Even if the Arbitrator is successful in justifying his reasons for deciding a rate of interest, the Agreement between the parties being the birth-giver, should be held at a higher stature when it concerns an issue that has been pre-decided and mutually agreed upon by the parties.
The High Court of Madras recognised the foreign arbitration award pronounced by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC’) and found that the respondents have failed to establish any ground for refusing the recognition of foreign award.
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
Interviewed by Bhumika Indulia
The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in the Union Government had instituted proceedings under Sections 14(2) read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) for a declaration that the majority of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal were de jure/de facto unable to discharge their functions and consequently their mandate stands terminated in terms of Section 14 of the Act.
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Telangana High Court, wherein the High Court dismissed the application
Madras High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed against the order of the single judge, whereby, the judge allowed the
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) for
“Apart from the remission ordered, there is no basis on which a party in CKH’s position or the Tribunal itself can seek to re-open or expand the subject matter of the award or arbitration.”
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J. while hearing an application against award of an arbitral tribunal has held that it would not
Bombay High Court: A very interesting question was considered by G.S. Kulkarni, J., the question being, whether mere filing of a proceeding
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., held that whether claims are barred by limitation is a mixed question of fact and law
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., allowed an amendment application seeking amendment of a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration