Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In this training session organised by Delos Dispute Resolution, the eminent panellists, comprising different legal professionals, discussed the structure, essentials, and considerations of an arbitral award.
A panel discussion was organised by SAM, Arbitral Women, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr on the proposed amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, via the 2024 draft bill as a precursor to the Delhi Arbitration Weekend.
The award debtor’s counsel contended that the bias is an element of fraud, and to adjudicate the allegations of fraud and/or bias, the member concerned of the arbitral tribunal is required to be impleaded in the proceedings under Section 34 and Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
by Anirudh Goyal* and Jaspreet Singh**
The present controversy arose because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not expressly empower courts to modify or vary an arbitral award, and Section 34 of the 1996 Act only confers upon courts the power to set aside an award.
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the legal framework for challenging an arbitral award before a court, while Section 37 governs appeals against specific orders passed under the Act, including those made under Section 34.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Interviewed by Shaleen Bareja
“It is now trite law that State agencies cannot hide behind the conventional excuse of bureaucratic delays and inefficiency in the State’s capacity, to condone delays.”
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
The Court examined the question that whether the High Court correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent one more opportunity to cross-examine the appellant’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejected such a prayer.
From the High Court’s clarification of the definition of “court” under the Arbitration Act to the Supreme Court’s recommendation for Parliament to introduce an amendment defining a specific limitation period for the appointment of arbitrators, several key rulings have shaped the arbitration landscape. This piece highlights the notable arbitration cases of 2024.
The Court relied on Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406., wherein it was held that a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable, though in some manner the arbitrator would examine the right to copyright, a right in rem.
“Jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is also to the exclusion of the civil courts and is not arbitrable.”
In the matter at hand, the appellant contended that the Council’s award ought to have been interfered with under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, as there was no conciliation in accordance with the procedure prescribed, a condition precedent for initiation of arbitration proceeding under Section 18 (3) of the MSMED Act.
Arbitration Act, 1940 — S. 29 — Interest on interest or compound interest: Post award interest on interest awarded is not grantable
“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”