Supreme Court
Disputes Falling Exclusively Within Jurisdiction Of Statutory Authorities Aren't Arbitrable : Supreme Court Reiterates
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that disputes falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable.While holding so, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the dispute related to wages and termination of an employee were non-arbitrable and would be exclusively dealt with by the statutory authorities established under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (“PW Act”) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”). “Insofar as...
S. 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court
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 the period of limitation.A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Limitation Act liberally as there is only a limited window to...
S.29A Arbitration | 'Sufficient Cause' To Extend Time For Award Should Be Interpreted To Facilitate Effective Dispute Resolution : Supreme Court
Extending the time for an arbitral tribunal to pass its award, the Supreme Court recently observed that extension can be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period and the phrase "sufficient cause" under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should take color from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process (ie facilitating effective dispute resolution)."The meaning of 'sufficient cause' for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying...
S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. “The scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is limited to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. In the present case, the High...
Determining 'Seat' In International Arbitration : Supreme Court Takes Shift From 'Closest Connection Test', Says Express Designation Of Place Matters
In a key ruling on International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement grants non-exclusive jurisdiction to a foreign court, that court is considered the "seat of arbitration." The Court reaffirmed the BALCO principle that Indian courts lack supervisory jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, for arbitrations seated abroad.Taking a shift from the 'Close Connection Test' to determine the seat of the arbitration, the...
Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Clauses In Public-Private Contracts Invalid; Can't Compel Selection Of Arbitrators From PSU's Panels : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday (November 8) ruled against clauses allowing Public Sector Undertakings to unilaterally appoint arbitrators to decide disputes with private contractors. The Constitution Bench held that while PSUs can maintain a panel of potential arbitrators, they cannot compel the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel.The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice JB Pardiwala, and...
Arbitral Tribunal May Impose Costs On Party Abusing Referral Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Compel Another's Participation In Arbitration : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that in the interest of justice, the Arbitral Tribunal may impose costs on the Party who abused the process of law constraining another party to participate in the Arbitral Proceedings by taking advantage of minimal judicial interference at the referral stage. “In order to balance such a limited scope of judicial interference with the interests of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may direct that the...
Government Entity Can't Be Given Differential Treatment While Staying Operation Of Arbitral Award : Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court disapproved of a High Court's decision to exempt a government entity from depositing other amounts in addition to the arbitral award amount as a condition precedent for seeking a stay on the enforcement of the award just because the government entity was not a flight risk.The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud,Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the law qua arbitration proceedings cannot be differently applied merely because of the status of...