S.47 Of CPC Cannot Be Used As An Alternative To S.37 Of A&C Act For Unsettling Arbitration Award: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has clarified that section 47 of the CPC, which permits objections to be raised in an execution petition before the Trial Court; cannot be used as an alternative to challenge an arbitration award, which is being executed before a Trial Court.The Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, while passing the order made it clear that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a Code in itself and lays down a mechanism to challenge an...

High Court May Grant Article 227 Interim Relief In Arbitration Proceedings In Exceptional Cases : Supreme Court

aThe Supreme Court (May 7) held that while the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) mandates minimal judicial interference, a High Court may, in exceptional cases, exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to grant interim relief, particularly where denial of such protection would result in irreparable harm. “We are aware of the established legal principle that the Courts should refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank...

Dispute Over Full & Final Settlement Is Arbitrable Despite Parties Discharging Contract : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (May 6) observed that if the insured alleges coercion in arriving at a settlement with the insurer, then the dispute over the validity of the settlement remains arbitrable. “Any dispute pertaining to the full and final settlement itself by necessary implication being a dispute arising out of or in relation to or under the substantive contract would not be precluded from reference to arbitration as the arbitration agreement contained in the original contract continues to...

Ad-Hoc Arbitrator Can Grant Interest U/S 16 Of MSMED Act, Even If Reference Was Not Made To MSME Council: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that an ad-hoc arbitrator (appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) is empowered to grant interest rate contemplated under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, even if the reference was not made to the MSME Facilitation Council for resolving disputes. Brief Facts: Respondent No. 2 (“Owner”) owned a thermal power plant in Haldia, West Bengal. It appointed BF ...

Can Arbitral Awards Be Modified In Setting-Aside Proceedings? – A Brief On Supreme Court's Re-Interpretation Of Section 34 Of Arbitration Act

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act'), governs the setting-aside of awards arising from arbitrations seated in India. This provision does not provide any powers for the setting-aside court to vary or modify portions of the award. This was the legal position in vogue under Indian law, until the Hon'ble Supreme Court's reinterpretation of Section 34, by its judgment dated 30th April 2025 in Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited ('Balasamy'). By their...

Evaluation Of Alternative Propositions By Arbitrator For Interim Award Does Not Constitute Inherent Contradiction Or Perversity: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar has held that considering alternative propositions by the Arbitrator and proceeding on the premise that the award holder would be entitled to an interim award under either scenario does not amount to an inherent contradiction. Evaluating alternatives is a legitimate judicial exercise and does not tantamount to perversity. Brief Facts: The dispute arises from an agreement dated December 26, 2004,...

Absence Of Express Liberty In Withdrawal Order To File Fresh Execution Petition Does Not Deny Benefit U/S 14 Of Limitation Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De has held that withdrawal of an execution petition for enforcement of an arbitral award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, when such ground is clearly stated in the withdrawal application, does not bar the petitioner from refiling before the appropriate forum, even if the court's order does not expressly grant liberty to refile. Accordingly, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) cannot be denied. ...

Arbitrator Can Fix Fee In Consultation With Parties Without Recourse To A&C Act; Quantum Can't Be Challenged Under Article 227: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bihas Ranjan De. has observed that an arbitrator can indeed fix his remuneration, and this can be done in a manner that may not comply with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided that such a decision is made in consultation with the parties involved. When parties contractually agree on a fee, the Fourth Schedule will not be applicable. The court held that a party cannot file a revision application under...

If Courts Can Only Set Aside Awards & Can't Modify Them, Parties Will Be Forced To Undergo Fresh Round Of Arbitration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that in order to ensure efficient dispute resolution and uphold the objectives of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Court should be allowed to modify awards when parties challenge the tribunal's decision. The decision was rendered by a Constitutional Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna comprising Justices BR Gavai,Sanjay Kumar, AG Masih and KV Viswanathan. Justice KV Viswanathan, however dissented on th issue whether Courts can modifiy awards under...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: April 2025

Supreme Court Sec 34(3) Arbitration Act | Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation : Supreme Court Case Title: M/S R. K. TRANSPORT COMPANY VERSUS M/S BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. (BALCO) Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 391 A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for challenging an arbitral...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: May 2025

Supreme Court When Can Court Remand Arbitral Award To Tribunal Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act ? Supreme Court Explains Case Details : GAYATRI BALASAMY Versus M/S ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED| SLP(C) No. 15336-15337/2021 Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 508 The Supreme Court Constitution Bench recently held that the powers of Courts to remand arbitral awards back to the Tribunal under S. 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be seen as a straight-jacket...

Supreme Court Criticises Arbitration Bill 2024 For Not Recognising Power To Implead Non-Signatories, Urges Union To Make Changes

The Supreme Court today (May 2) expressed its dissatisfaction with the continued absence of explicit statutory recognition for the power of arbitral tribunals to implead or join non-signatory parties. The Court noted with concern that, despite earlier omissions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the newly proposed Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, which seeks to overhaul the legislation, also failed to address this critical issue.“The Department of Legal Affairs has now, once...