Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The scope of a challenge under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 Arbitration Act.
The High Court of Madras recognised the foreign arbitration award pronounced by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC’) and found that the respondents have failed to establish any ground for refusing the recognition of foreign award.
Born on 10-02-1962 in Hisar, Justice Surya Kant, has the distinction to be appointed as the youngest Advocate General of Haryana. Before being elevated as a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Surya Kant served as a Judge in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and as Chief Justice of Himanchal Pradesh High Court.
The Delhi High Court held that even if the Contract clearly stated that before resorting to arbitration, the parties agreed to explore Conciliation by the Committee, the same cannot be held to be mandatory in nature. Further, the Court held that in case of urgency, arbitral proceedings can be initiated even when conciliation proceedings were pending.
An arbitration agreement that is embedded within a contract would always be considered as a separate and severable clause, and despite a reference being made by the court the arbitrator is free to decide on their jurisdiction including the existence of the arbitration agreement in accordance with the kompetenz-kompetenz principle
Madras High Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to join respondents 3 to 5 as parties to arbitral proceedings, as they do not qualify as “alter egos” of the first respondent or as successors-in-interest.
The ground of Patent illegality gives way to setting aside an Arbitral Award with a very minimal scope of intervention. A party cannot simply raise an objection on the ground of patent illegality if the Award is simply against them. Patent illegality requires a distinct transgression of law, the clear lack of which thereof makes the petition simply a pointless effort of objection towards an Award made by a competent Arbitral Tribunal.
All that the respondent wished for was a better roof over the head of his family. It was for this objective that the collaboration agreement was devised, but the appellant subjected the respondent to undue harassment on account of his illegal designs which led to the registration of the FIR, and the respondent had to run from pillar to post due to the direct acts of the appellant. Such circumstances do warrant awarding of damages on account of mental agony and harassment.
The Supreme Court observed that such settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence and hence, the Court cannot override such compounding and impose its will.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one
Delhi High Court: In a review petition filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on behalf
The Court has a duty to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice and when an award has been passed without complying with the mandatory principles of natural justice, this Court being the custodian of rights and liberties of parties must take its guard to correct the infirmities which have already been carried out.
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.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court setting aside the arbitral award observing that the application for the Principle of Separability requires a binding arbitration agreement.
Grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff company would cause irreparable injury to the Artist which cannot be compensated in monetary terms as he would be forced to continue with the contract of personal service even though mutual trust has been lost between parties.
Any document in writing exchanged between the parties which provide a record of the agreement and in respect of which there is no denial by the other side, would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and would amount to an arbitration clause.
The parties may choose to enter two different contracts covering the same transaction at different points of time, however, the purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties.
The Court, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act, can refuse to refer the parties to arbitration only where “it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny.”