Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party including regarding the arbitrability of the dispute. All contentions and pleas are kept open for the parties to raise before the arbitral tribunal.”
As per Clause 26.2 of the Agreement, the Chairman/Managing Director of the Board of Directors of Contractors was supposed to do the conciliation and not the committee constituted by NHIDCL.
“The legislative intent of inserting Section 29-A of the Act is only for expeditious disposal of the arbitration proceedings and not to confer a new defence upon an unsuccessful party to challenge the award and to reopen the entire proceedings.”
A quick recap of the latest rulings on Arbitration Law by the High Courts.
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.
The respondent raised an objection to the maintainability of the present application on the ground that the petitioner being an agent governed under Section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935, was required to approach the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies for initiating a dispute resolution proceeding.
“The arbitral proceedings in the matter were not terminated but the Arbitrator had been non-responsive and was unable to perform his functions. Thus, as per Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the present case is suited for appointment of a substitute Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes.”
“The Statehas miserably failed to show any patent illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Mere allegation would not suffice until and unless it stands substantiated from the pleading and the records.”
The Court opined that all nine contracts are related to same project and if it is accepted that there is an Arbitration Clause only in five contracts, then parties will have to be relegated to civil proceedings, which will lead to multiplicity of disputes, delay in adjudication and possibility of conflicting rulings.
Supreme Court said that when there is a reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, the arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to the second contract unless there is a specific mention/reference thereto.
“Prima facie, Respondents 3-5 are a veritable party to the loan agreement as they are connected with the loan documents and form part of the loan transaction.”
“The expression ‘public policy’ is of wider amplitude and hence, where award passed by arbitral tribunal is against the terms of contract or against law of land for time being in force, such an award is against public policy of India and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
“It needs no re-articulation that one of the cardinal principles of arbitration is, that since arbitration is a remedy that is founded on consent of parties, the agreed procedure for appointment of an arbitrator must be scrupulously followed. However, the same is not done in the present case.”
Where parties decide to put an end to the original contract as if it never existed and substituted a new contract with it, then in such a situation the original contract is extinguished by the substituted one and the arbitration clause of the original one perishes with it.
Unilateral Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator vitiates the proceedings of Arbitration.
Supreme Court refused to give effect to the appointment of an officer of the Ministry of Law and Justice as an arbitrator.
Even if the Arbitrator is successful in justifying his reasons for deciding a rate of interest, the Agreement between the parties being the birth-giver, should be held at a higher stature when it concerns an issue that has been pre-decided and mutually agreed upon by the parties.
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: In a review petition filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on behalf
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.”