High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse : Supreme Court

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 another, despite the Tribunal already having provided ample time for cross-examination.Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra observed that the High Court can interfere with the impugned order under its Writ...

Award Passed On Consent Cannot Be Held To Be Patently Illegal Or Contrary To Public Policy: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya held that the award being primarily based on consent cannot also be held to be patently illegal or in conflict with the public policy of India. Brief Facts The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the “Act”), assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 06.07.2023 in Arbitration Case No.69...

Arbitration Cases Annual Digest 2024

Supreme Court Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Validity Of Section 3G Of National Highways Act Case Title: B.D. Vivek v. Union of India, Writ Petition Civil No. 1364 of 2023 The Supreme Court Bench of Justices B.V. Nagrathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has issued notice on a writ petition challenging the Constitutional Validity of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. The writ petition questions the legality of Section 3G(5) of the Act. This section mandates...

Arbitration Cases Quarterly Digest: October To December 2024

Supreme Court Arbitral Award Must Carry Post-Award Interest As Per S. 31(7)(b) : Supreme Court Case Title: R.P. GARG VERSUS THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10472 OF 2024 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 794 The Supreme Court held that the post-award period shall carry a rate of interest decided as per Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). “For the reasons to follow, while allowing the appeal...

Monthly Digest Of Arbitration Cases: December 2024

Supreme Court S. 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court Case : Kirpal Singh Vs Government Of India Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 970 The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for the exclusion of the time spent in pursuing bona fide proceedings in a wrong forum from the computation of...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round Up [23rd December-29th December 2024]

High Courts Calcutta High Court Remedy Under A&C Act Is In Addition To Remedies Under Special Statutes, But Once Elected Other Remedies Are Barred For Same Dispute: Calcutta HC Case Title: Smt. Rita Banerjee & Anr. Versus S.E. Builders & Realtors Limited Case Number: IA No. GA 3 of 2022 in CS No. 57 of 2022 The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Krishna Rao has observed that the remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in...

Delhi HC Upholds Limited Judicial Interference In Arbitral Awards, Dismisses S.34 Plea Challenging Award Of ₹77.96 Crore In Telecom Dispute

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has observed that it is no longer res integra that while dealing with the objections under Section 34, a court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award. The court observed that under Section 35(2)(a), an award can be set aside only if the petitioner establishes that the parties were under some incapacity or the arbitration agreement was not valid or the petitioner was not given the proper notice of the appointment of an...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round Up [16th December-22nd December 2024]

Supreme Court Arbitration Can't Be 'Optional' When Agreement Provides Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court Case Title: TARUN DHAMEJA VERSUS SUNIL DHAMEJA & ANR. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 996 The Supreme Court held that there cannot be an 'optional' arbitration, where parties are required to mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause. Setting aside the MP High Court's decision, the Court said that there is nothing like 'optional arbitration' that could be invoked...

Reference Application U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act Should Be Filed Within 120 Days From Date Of Service Of Summons: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar has held that a reference application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should have been filed within a period of 120 days from the date of service of summons to the defendant, which was long passed before 20.03.2019. Thus, where the reference application under Section 8 of the Act was made long after the expiry of the outer limit of 120 days from the date of service of summons, such a reference ...

[Arbitration Act] Friendly Consultation Necessary Before Issuing Section 21 Notice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of J. C. Hari Shankar has held that in the present case there is no scope for negotiation between the parties, much less friendly negotiations. Brief facts of the case: The present dispute arises vis-à-vis a Lease Deed dated 30.07.2021, in which certain premises were leased by the petitioner to the respondent. Article 16 of the deed states that parties should resolve disputes by arbitration. Then, the petitioner addressed various emails to the respondent...

Arbitration Act: Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2024

As the year 2024 nears its end, LiveLaw brings to you a summary of important Supreme Court judgments of the year rendered in connection with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The same are as follows:1. Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Modified Under Sections 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme CourtCase: S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14]In this case, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol reiterated that any attempt to “modify an...

Award Is Time-Barred U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Due To Petitioner's Failure To Confirm Award Receipt On Affidavit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has affirmed that in absence of any positive affirmation on affidavit from the petitioner as to when the award was received, the Court cannot accept the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that as soon as the award was received it was filed by the petitioner. Brief Facts: The petitioner has approached the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an award passed by the arbitrator...