Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court had ordered the attachment of the Bikaner House to enforce payment since neither did the Nagar Palika of the State of Rajasthan comply with the court order to file an affidavit of assets nor did it pay the petitioner per the arbitral award.
The Nagar Palika of the State of Rajasthan failed to comply with court order to file an affidavit of assets despite being given multiple opportunities and failed to pay the petitioner in accordance with the arbitral award.
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.
In the Judgment dated 12-09-2024, Supreme Court had held that an application for extension of time for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period. The court, while adjudicating such extension applications will be guided by the principle of sufficient cause.
“Merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal, is no ground to set aside the award”.
‘The autonomy conferred on the parties is not unbridled and appointment of the Arbitrator has to meet the prerequisite of his neutrality and impartiality which are the bedrock on which the foundation of arbitration rests.’
To resolve the questions arising and considering the uncertainties regarding time-lapse between the date of the award and its enforceability and the ever-fluctuating exchange rates, the Court formulated twin principles.
“Section 29A intends to ensure the timely completion of arbitral proceedings while allowing Courts the flexibility to grant extensions when warranted. Prescribing a limitation period, unless clearly stated in words or necessary, should not be accepted. Bar by limitation has penal and fatal consequences.”
The statutory authority under the MSMED Act would only have the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute when the supplier had been registered as a Micro or Small enterprise under the MSMED Act at that relevant point of time.
by Prashant Pakhiddey* and Manav Gill**
A quick recap of the latest rulings on Arbitration Law by the High Courts.
An update on new addition of case laws to SCC’s High Court Cases (‘HCC’) volumes.
The direction given by the Sole Arbitrator to exclude the period from 31-03-2015 to 31-03-2017 for calculation of pre-litigation interest was contrary to the express terms in the Agreement made between the parties.
Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to assign the hearing of the petition under Section 34 to a Judge other than the Judge who heard and passed the impugned order.
Arbitration — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 — Arbitral award — Validity of: Law explained on validity
The Delhi High Court said that the scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has now become heavily circumscribed.
Orissa High Court held that the court’s intervention is limited and emphasised on the autonomy of the arbitral process and the finality of the arbitral award.
The Court held that unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator without the petitioner’s consent could render the award void under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
“If the intention of the Parliament were to vest the power of extending the mandate of an Arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in High Court as envisaged under Section 11, then nothing could have prevented it from providing so.”
“When a Coordinate Bench issues a judgment on a particular legal issue, that judgment becomes binding precedent for subsequent cases involving a similar issue before another Coordinate Bench”