Dissenting Opinion Of An Arbitrator Cannot Be Treated As An Award If The Majority Award Is Set Aside : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside.In this case, a three member arbitration tribunal passed an award in a dispute between Hindustan Construction Company Limited and National Highways Authority of India. The award was unanimous on most questions while, on others, there was a dissenting view of one of the arbitrators. The Bombay High Court (DB) set aside the award observing that the tribunal’s majority view, and...

Supreme Court Restores 1997 Arbitral Award Passed Under 1940 Act; Criticises HC & Trial Court For "Appellate Review"

The Supreme Court, while restoring an arbitral award passed in 1997 which was set aside by the Trial Court and the High Court under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, has emphasised that the court’s jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the 1940 Act never extended beyond discerning whether the award discloses an “error apparent on the face of the award” or not.The court while restoring the arbitral award said, “The ruling of the trial courts and the High Court is nothing short of intense appellate...

Recourse To Section 34(4) Of The A&C Act Can Only Be Taken For Curable Defects, Courts Cannot Allow The Tribunal To Either Review Or Reconsider The Award: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that the recourse to Section 34(4) of the A&C Act, that grants courts the authority to remit an arbitral award to the Arbitral Tribunal, can only be taken for correcting the curable defects such as filling the gaps in reasoning, correct typographical and arithmetical errors and not to allow the tribunal to do a review of the award. The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma has clarified the scope and extent of Section 34(4) of the Act. It held that the...

Courts Can Partially Set Aside An Arbitration Award, Doctrine Of Severability Is Enshrined Under Section 34 Of The A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the Courts exercising powers under Section 34 of the A&C Act has the power to partially set aside an arbitration award to strike off the offending portion of the award while retaining the remaining award. The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma held that the doctrine of severability of arbitration award is explicitly recognised under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. Further, it held that an arbitration award consists of distinct components and...

Court Can Receive The Deficient/Requisite Stamp Duty Itself, Requirement To Send The Impounded Agreement To Collector Of Stamps Not Mandatory: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court while reiterating that it is mandatory for the Court exercising power under Section 11 of the A&C Act to impound the non-stamped or insufficiently stamped agreement held that the Court can itself collect the deficient/requisite stamp duty under Section 35 of the Stamps Act, 1899 and enable deposit of the requisite stamp duty along with penalty as contemplated under proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta has given the...

True Or Certified Copy Of The Original Arbitration Agreement Can Be Filed When The Issue Of Stamp Duty Is Not Disputed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the true or certified copy of the agreement containing the arbitration agreement would be sufficient for the purpose of Section 11 petition when on the face of it, the same is duly stamped and a statement to this effect is made in the petition under Section 11 of the Act, and the same is not controverted by the opposite party. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta gave much needed clarity on several important questions of law that arose in view of the...

Dispute Not Resolved By Friendly Consultation As Per Agreement: Rajasthan High Court Appoints Arbitrator

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur recently allowed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator, on the ground that the Lease Agreement entered between the parties provided the mechanism to resolve the dispute by ‘friendly consultation’ and the respondent did not participate and make any effort to resolve the dispute by way of ‘friendly consultation’. The single judge bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur observed,“This Court finds...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 14 to 20 August 2023

Supreme Court: Arbitration Award Cannot Be Set Aside On Mere Possibility Of An Alternative View On Facts Or Interpretation Of Contract: Supreme Court Case Title: Konkan Railway Corporation Limited vs Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking The Supreme Court observed that Arbitration awards cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract. The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is exercised only to...

No-Claim-Certificate (NCC) Executed Under Duress, Contractor Entitled For Damages : Delhi HC Reiterates

The Delhi High Court has held that mere execution of an NCC in favour of the employer would not disentitle the contractor from later claiming damages if it is shown that it was executed under duress and not out of free will. The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that an endorsement given by Contractor, while seeking extension of time, would not come in its way in seeking escalation cost, especially when the delay was attributable to the employer. The Court further held that...

Clause Restricting Right To Invoke Arbitration To Only 6 Months Invalid; Cannot Restrict To Period Lesser Than Provided Under Limitation Act: Delhi HC Reiterates

The High Court of Delhi has reiterated that an arbitration clause that restricts the right of a party to a mere of 6 months is invalid. The bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna held that the right to invoke arbitration cannot be restricted to a period lesser than that provided under the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court was hearing an application under Section 11(6) filed by G.S. Express Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute that has arisen...

Arbitration Award Cannot Be Set Aside On Mere Possibility Of An Alternative View Of Facts Of Interpretation Of Contract : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that Arbitration awards cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract.The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is exercised only to see if the Arbitral Tribunal’s view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed.In this case, the Arbitral Tribunal rejected all the claims of Chenab Bridge Project...

Pre-Arbitration Reference To DRC Would Not Be A Bar To Appointment Of Arbitrator When The Chief Engineer Has Failed To Respond To Notice Of Dispute: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that in a multi-tier dispute resolution clause which provides for pre-arbitration reference to Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), the failure to refer the dispute to DRC would not be a ground to refuse appointment of arbitrator when the Chief Engineer against whose decision an appeal was to be filed before DRC failed to respond to notice of dispute. The bench of Sachin Datta held in a multi-tier arbitration clause, a party would have no occasion to...