Credible evidence is must to substantiate claim of loss of profitability; SC sets aside arbitral award in conflict with ‘public policy of India’
“The credibility of the evidence is the evidence of the credibility of claim for loss of profit”.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
Depositing award amount for withdrawal with due notice to the decree holder is sufficient to discharge onus on the judgment debtor: Delhi High Court
“The decree holder was not required to await the outcome of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, if it did choose to remain under a self-imposed embargo, then it can’t demand interest.”
Calcutta High Court deems Arbitral Award void after termination of Arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29-A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
While cautioning the parties to the Arbitration proceedings, Calcutta High Court stated that parties should be vigilant in applying for extensions within the prescribed periods and dismissed the petitions seeking an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate.
Seat of arbitration once fixed by the arbitration agreement, has the exclusive jurisdiction for applications u/s 11 of the A&C Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court
“The Court observes that the ‘contrary indicia’ is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.”
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”.
Rajasthan High Court appoints sole arbitrator where performance security was forfeited without considering force majeure clause
“The Court exercised the powers conferred under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed, Jai Prakash Narayan Purohit, Retired Additional District Judge, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.”
Unambiguous intent required for incorporating Arbitration Clause by reference under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Calcutta High Court
In the instant matter, the primary issue was the incorporation of arbitration clauses from the Master Facility Agreement and Settlement Agreement and the maintainability of a composite reference.
Nomination of arbitrator by ineligible persons: SC defers hearing as Centre considers Reforms to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Two Benches of the Supreme Court had expressed their disagreement with the view taken in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), therefore, the matter was referred to larger Bench.
“Only ex facie invalidity of an agreement can be a ground for refusal of reference”; Calcutta High Court allows Section 11 application
Without questioning the validity and legality of the arbitration clause, the Calcutta High Court appointed an Arbitrator to decide the issues raised by both the parties.
Delhi High Court allows parties to nominate arbitrator upon Dispute Redressal Committee’s failure to settle dispute
The stipulations contained in Clause 25 of the Agreement must consequently be read down and understood to mean that at least one or more of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal must possess the qualifications as prescribed in Clause 25.
Necessity of Stamping of Arbitration Agreements: Is the Conundrum Solved?
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Megha Saha††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 41
Notice invoking arbitration issued prior to 2015 Amendment but application filed post Amendment: SC resolves enigma around applicability of Arbitration Amendment Act 2015
Upholding the Telangana High Court judgment, the Supreme Court held that the law prevailing prior to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall be applicable in a case where the notice invoking arbitration is issued prior to the Amendment Act, 2015.
All unilateral appointments of arbitrators are not invalid: Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court held that all the unilateral appointment of arbitrators is not invalid unless the arbitrator’s relationship falls within the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure; Delhi High Court denies permanent injunction under Section 9
The Delhi High Court denied permanent injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and held that Section 9 did not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure.
Power to recall orders not to be exercised when ground for vacating the judgment was available but not availed; Delhi High Court dismisses application for recall of order
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed for “recall of earlier order” under Section 151 of CrPC and held that the settled things could not be permitted to be unsettled at the behest of a person who had not been careful enough with regard to his rights and claims.
Order of stay/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court ruled that the moratorium granted by the NCLAT, staying the institution of suits and proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, after the resolution process was initiated against it under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, was akin to an order of moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Delhi High Court | Challenge to the mandate of the arbitrator on the ground of bias and impartiality cannot be raised under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
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.
2022 SCC Vol. 9 Part 5
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 7, 8 and 11 — Essential requirements of arbitration agreement: When there is discernible intention
The Wide Scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
by Ayushi Raghuwanshi†
Explained| Commercial Court’s power while dealing with an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and Krishna Murari, JJ has explained the scope of powers of a Commercial Court while