The Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses in Draft Agreements
by Abhinav Agrawal* and Deepali Poddar**
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
Merely because arbitrator was appointed by Orissa HC is no ground for Ranchi Court to not have jurisdiction: Jharkhand HC sets aside order dismissing S.34 arbitration application
The intention of both the parties where to go for arbitration, is at Ranchi and the proceeding after permission of the High Court was also conducted at Ranchi and in the agreement, the seat is also said to be at Ranchi. Thus, Ranchi court is having jurisdiction.
Simply because application to refer parties to arbitration is rejected, right to file written statement cannot be forfeited on same date: Andhra Pradesh HC
The High Court held that the Trial Court ought to have passed separate order, in accordance with law, considering the provisions related to filing of the written statement and its forfeiture, also, keeping a view that the procedural law is handmaid of justice and the Court has the power to extend the time for filing of the written statement in the facts and circumstances of each and every case.
2025 SCC Vol. 1 Part 4
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Substantive claims of petitioner whether time-barred i.e. issue of limitation requiring intricate evidentiary
2024 SCC Vol. 10 Part 5
Special leave petition – Exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order of the High Court
2024 SCC Vol. 10 Part 4
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(6) and 37: Setting aside of order setting aside award, by Court exercising jurisdiction under
Unilateral Appointment of an Arbitrator: The Lack of Clarity in the Judicial Approach and the Way Forward
by Shalaka Patil† and Surbhi Shah††
SC clarifies scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of Arbitration Act: Sets aside Bombay HC ruling on appointment of arbitrator
Supreme Court clarified that the limited jurisdiction of the referral Courts under Section 11 must not be misused by parties in order to force other parties to the arbitration agreement to participate in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process.
If dispute is arbitrable and arbitration clause exists, Courts ought to refer dispute to arbitration under S. 8 of A&C Act, 1996: Gauhati HC
In the present case, Clause 12 of the partnership deed indicated that the Partnership Act, 1932 and its Rules shall cover only those aspects not specifically mentioned in the deed.
Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation?
by Akash Hogade†
‘Appellate Court must respect Trial Court’s findings unless there is clear error/failure of justice’: Bombay HC upholds Single Judge’s order appointing Court Receiver in partnership dispute
The Single Judge in order dated 16-07-2024 held that there are enough documents proving that appellant had started construction on Virar property even though there is a status quo order, and thus, to safeguard and preserve the property, a Court Receiver needs to be appointed.
‘Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot be used as tool for reappreciation of facts’: Delhi HC
“Section 34, quite apart from its classically limited scope, is certainly not intended to be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a second bite at the arbitral cherry.”
‘One business partner’s conduct detrimental to another’; Bombay HC grants interim relief u/s 9 to aggrieved partner, in absence of efficacious remedy u/s 17 of Arbitration Act, 1996
Due to the respondent 1’s brazen disregard for the status quo order, the Court in absence of a Section 17 remedy, had to grant an interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2024 SCC Vol. 6 Part 1
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11 & 8 and 16 r/w S. 7: Law clarified on harmonious construction of Arbitration
‘S. 21 notice not required if claim is filed in form of counterclaim for which reference has been made by Court’; Delhi HC dismisses Arbitration Applications
Since AISPL and the ASF Group had assumed responsibility for payments to be made to SPCPL, their impleadment was necessary for a comprehensive adjudication of the matter.
Executing Court must ascertain stamp duty payment issue before enforcement of Arbitral Award: MP High Court
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
2024 SCC Vol. 5 Part 2
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Issue of limitation — Adjudication of, as an admissibility issue at the stage