Execution Proceedings Can't Be Quashed Solely Due To Non-Supply Of Signed Arbitral Award: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey has held that non-supply of the signed arbitral award may be a ground for setting aside an award, but on this ground alone, the execution proceedings cannot be quashed. Brief Facts The petitioner purchased a vehicle through a hire purchase agreement with respondent No.1/bank. The petitioner failed to make payment of installments, therefore, according to the agreement, an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator passed...

Power Of Court To Modify An Arbitral Award – A Legal Quagmire

The issue whether courts can modify arbitral awards in exercise of their powers under Sec. 34 and Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'ACA') has been a long standing issue of debate within the legal fraternity with the presence of conflicting judgments. To put quietus to this issue, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan has referred this matter to a five-judge...

Arbitral Award Can't Have Specific Format; Reasoning Must Be 'Proper', 'Intelligible' And 'Adequate' : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice K. .R. Shriram (Chief Justice) and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy have observed that an arbitral award does not have to follow any specific format; just as every judge writes their judgment in a particular style, arbitrators also write in different styles. The court also held that any ground which was not raised in a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be raised at the stage of appeal under...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: January 2025

Supreme Court High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse : Supreme Court Case Title: SEROSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEXTER CAPITAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 14 The Supreme Court today criticized the High Court's intervention under its Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitral Proceedings, where it had directed the Arbitral Tribunal to grant additional time for one party to cross-examine...

No Bar On Court To Entertain More Than One Application U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that there is no prohibition for the Court to entertain more than one application under Section 29A of the Act seeking extension of time for the arbitrator to pronounce arbitral award provided sufficient cause is demonstrated. Brief Facts: The present application has been filed under section 29A of the Arbitration Act seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. The learned arbitrator directed the ...

Court Having Jurisdiction Over Seat Of Arbitration Would Be Entitled To Entertain Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has held that the court having jurisdiction over the seat of Arbitration would be entitled to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: A dispute arose between the petitioner and the opposite party. An Arbitration clause was invoked. The award was also passed which was subsequently challenged before the commercial court at Ranchi under section 34 of the Act. The opposite party challenged...

Award Passed By Improperly Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est In Law And Invalid: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that it is settled law that the Arbitrator is a creature of the contract and has to function within four corners of contract. If a particular mechanism is contemplated for his appointment, the same must be followed in its true letter, spirit and intent, failing which the Arbitrator is without jurisdiction and the appointment is non-est and invalid. Brief Facts: The petitioner was awarded the work of “Civil works for raising...

Arbitration Monthly Digest: February 2025

Supreme Court 'Oral Undertaking Falls Within Scope Of Arbitration Clause' : Supreme Court Upholds Award Against Husband For Operation In Wife's Demat Account Case Title: AC CHOKSHI SHARE BROKER PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS JATIN PRATAP DESAI & ANR. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 178 The Supreme Court today (February 10) held that an oral contract undertaking joint and several liability falls within the scope of an arbitration clause. Holding so , the Court affirmed an arbitral...

Construction Of Terms Of Contract Must Be Primarily Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that Construction of the terms of the contract is primarily for the arbitrator to decide, unless it is found that such a construction is not at all possible. Brief Facts: After a competitive bidding process, a contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The contract required the supply of 8000 MT of rails within 3 months from the date of establishment of the letter of credit. There were...

Arbitral Award Can Be Set Aside As 'Patently Illegal' If View Taken By Arbitrator Is Not A Plausible One: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that when the view taken by the Arbitrator is not even a plausible view, an award passed by such an arbitrator can be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration act on the ground of patent illegality. Brief Facts: The petitioner awarded a contract to the respondent for the purpose of designing and constructing underground stations and tunnels in Chennai. The respondent claimed additional costs due to change in law which...

Govt Authority Must Furnish Security Before Getting Stay On Award U/S 36(3) Of A&C Act, No Special Treatment Can Be Given: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that special treatment cannot be given to the government while hearing a petition seeking stay on the enforcement of the award under section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act. Every petitioner including the government will have to furnish security or deposit the awarded amount before a stay on the enforcement of the award can be granted. Brief Facts: The present application has been filed seeking stay on the enforcement of...

[A&C Act] Non-Payment Of Part Of Mutually Agreed Amount After Settlement Of Dispute Not An Arbitrable Issue Under Arbitration Agreement: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of an application filed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that once an amount has been mutually decided by the parties, the dispute itself is resolved and no arbitrable issue remains for consideration. A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice V. Srinivas pointed out that non-payment of part amount of the mutually agreed amount cannot be said to give rise to an arbitrable dispute. When an...