arbitral award Archives | Page 3 of 5 | SCC Times

delhi high court

Case Briefs High Courts

S 34 (4) cannot save or aid an arbitral award suffering from illegalities stipulated under S. 34(2) Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is a clear and unequivocal embodiment of the Legislature‘s intent to balance the competing facets of arbitration, I.e., on one hand, while courts are enjoined to follow the minimalist intervention route, it would clearly be a travesty of justice if they were to fail to intervene where circumstances warrant, and demand corrective measures being adopted.

dissenting opinion in arbitration

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Dissenting Opinion in Arbitration cannot be treated as an award if majority award is set aside: Supreme Court

“Dissenting opinion of arbitrators might provide useful clues during procedural issues, which forms a critical part when the hearings are challenged”.

court cannot modify arbitral award

Case Briefs Supreme Court

‘Court cannot modify arbitral award under Section 34 of Arbitration Act’: Supreme Court reiterates

The Supreme Court explained that the older Act enabled the Court to modify an award, a power which was consciously omitted by Parliament while enacting the 1996 Act, hinting towards exclusion of power to modify an award.

calcutta high court

Case Briefs High Courts

Compliance of Section 19 of MSMED Act is a pre-requisite for seeking Stay on Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court held that failure to comply with procedural requirements under Section 19 of the MSMED Act renders application for stay of Arbitral Award as not maintainable.

himachal pradesh high court

Case Briefs High Courts

Consent for extending arbitral period under Section 29A(3) of 2015 Amendment Act doesn’t need to be express or in writing: Himachal Pradesh HC

“The consensus of the parties in proceeding with the arbitration case beyond twelve months without raising any objection to the continuation of proceeding does amount to consent. On the basis of such consent, the arbitral award if passed after six months would be a valid award.”

delhi high court

Case Briefs High Courts

[S. 34 Arbitration Act] Delhi High Court refuses to interfere in Indian Railway’s plea regarding arbitral award being perverse

Indian Railway’s has failed to substantiate its grounds for setting aside the impugned Arbitral Award that the impugned award suffers from patent illegality and the findings therein are perverse and would shock the conscience of this Court.

calcutta high court

Case Briefs High Courts

Object of Arbitration Act’s Section 12(2) disclosure is to prohibit any continued Arbitrator-Party associations during proceedings: Calcutta High Court

Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 obligates the Arbitrator to remain neutral and to disclose to the parties any acts or omissions that are likely to fall foul of the mandate.

delhi high court

Case Briefs High Courts

[SpiceJet v. Kal Airways] Delhi High Court upholds Arbitral Award of Rs. 270 crores; rejects SpiceJet’s plea

“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.”

calcutta high court

Case Briefs High Courts

Defaulting Buyers exempted from paying 3 times the Bank Interest Rate under Section 16 of the MSMED Act when supplier is ‘medium enterprise’: Calcutta High Court

“The irrationality of the quantum of the costs imposed will be considered at the time of determining whether the Award should be set aside under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.”

delhi high court

Case Briefs High Courts

[S. 34 Arbitration Act] Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award for being perverse and ex-facie arbitrary

The present case is an example where substantial liability has sought to be fastened on one of the contracting parties based on specious paper calculations. It cannot be overemphasized that arbitral tribunals must exercise due care and caution while dealing with such claims.

2023 SCC Vol. 6 Part 2

Cases Reported SCC Weekly

2023 SCC Vol. 6 Part 2

Power of Indian Courts to modify an Arbitral Award: This article submits that the courts ought to have power to modify the

calcutta high court

Case Briefs High Courts

Arbitrator’s view is ultimate, not to be interfered with by Courts, unless arbitration agreement evidently absent: Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court held that Court should not substitute its own view, replacing that of the arbitrator, unless it is manifestly evident that there existed no agreement.

himachal pradesh high court

Case Briefs High Courts

District Court must examine whether pre-deposit of 75% of award under Section 19 of the MSME Act is actually deposited: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the District Court to decide the matter afresh.

delhi high court

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court sets aside arbitral award passed by Arbitrator having de jure inability to pass the award

The ineligibility of an Arbitrator goes to the root of his jurisdiction and the Arbitral Award cannot be considered as valid.

delhi high court

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court sets aside additional costs of Rs. 60 crores granted in favour of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd in absence of substantial evidence

An arbitral tribunal is also considered a court for the purposes of adjudication of claims before it and is often subject to the requirement of providing reasons while granting a party any relief, not for the purposes of adjudicating the validity of an order but for the satisfaction, understanding and notional justice for all the parties involved.

third party funding

Case Briefs High Courts

Third Party Funders to be fully aware of their exposure and cannot be mulcted with liability which they have not undertaken or are aware of: Delhi High Court

Permitting enforcement of an arbitral award against a non-party which had not accepted any such risk, was neither desirable nor permissible”

delhi high court

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court refuses to grant relief in a contract being determinable in nature and hence, not enforceable

Delhi High Court observed that that the Sole Arbitrator was well within its jurisdiction to declare the Agreement dated 23-03-2001 as determinable agreement in view of the statement of claim of the respondent and Terms of the said Agreement.

Calcutta High Court

Case Briefs High Courts

Arbitral award itself stands vitiated, if passed by unilaterally appointed arbitrator(s): Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between both the parties.

Delhi High Court

Case Briefs High Courts

‘Interest cannot be withheld in the absence of express provisions permitting the same’; Delhi High Court partially sets aside arbitral award for being patently illegal

The impugned arbitral award was passed without considering the clauses of the Concessionaire Agreement while adjudicating on the rate of interest to be granted, thus, suffers from infirmity and patent illegality.

Case Briefs High Courts

Bombay High Court refuses to interfere with arbitration award for consolidated claims

Concluding that the principal contention raised by the petitioner regarding consolidation of claims arising out of nine separate contracts is devoid of substance, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition refusing to interfere with the arbitral award.

×