Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
An arbitral tribunal is also considered a court for the purposes of adjudication of claims before it and is often subject to the requirement of providing reasons while granting a party any relief, not for the purposes of adjudicating the validity of an order but for the satisfaction, understanding and notional justice for all the parties involved.
Permitting enforcement of an arbitral award against a non-party which had not accepted any such risk, was neither desirable nor permissible”
Delhi High Court observed that that the Sole Arbitrator was well within its jurisdiction to declare the Agreement dated 23-03-2001 as determinable agreement in view of the statement of claim of the respondent and Terms of the said Agreement.
Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between both the parties.
The impugned arbitral award was passed without considering the clauses of the Concessionaire Agreement while adjudicating on the rate of interest to be granted, thus, suffers from infirmity and patent illegality.
Concluding that the principal contention raised by the petitioner regarding consolidation of claims arising out of nine separate contracts is devoid of substance, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition refusing to interfere with the arbitral award.
The scope of a challenge under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 Arbitration Act.
The Delhi High Court denied permanent injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and held that Section 9 did not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure.
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court setting aside the arbitral award observing that the application for the Principle of Separability requires a binding arbitration agreement.
Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant petition, Aravind Kumar, C.J., said that the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. allowed appeals filed by the
Madras High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed against the order of the single judge, whereby, the judge allowed the
The Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution, RGNUL (CADR) is collaborating with Surana & Surana International Attorneys, headquartered in Chennai, India
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (‘A&C Act') challenging
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 12-12-2018 passed by the Additional
Rajasthan High Court: Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. found that the writ petition by the petitioner lacks merit and dismissed it
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J. upheld the award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal holding that the award holder
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha, JJ., expressed that, “…compensation payable under Sections 73, 74
by Tariq Khan†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 8