Section 11 Archives

Delhi High Court allows parties to nominate arbitrator upon Dispute Redressal Committee’s failure to settle dispute

The stipulations contained in Clause 25 of the Agreement must consequently be read down and understood to mean that at least one or more of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal must possess the qualifications as prescribed in Clause 25.

Case Briefs High Courts

‘Interest cannot be withheld in the absence of express provisions permitting the same’; Delhi High Court partially sets aside arbitral award for being patently illegal

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.

Case Briefs High Courts

[Arbitration Agreement] Delhi High Court reiterates the law of interpretation with respect to two inconsistent clauses of a same instrument/document/deed

Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one

Case Briefs High Courts

Delhi High Court | Review is permissible against an order dismissing a petition under S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

While exercising the power conferred by Section 11 of the Act, the Court ceases to be a Court of Record and the review or reopening of proceedings which is sought is not with respect to any power exercised by the Court under Section 11 on merits but on account of the evident factual mistake in that order.

Case Briefs High Courts

Calcutta High Court | Illegal procedure for appointment of Arbitrator does not render Arbitration agreement illegal in toto; Guiding Principles for Appointment of Arbitrator reiterated

Calcutta High Court: In a petition challenging the appointment of sole Arbitrator by the respondent, Shekhar B. Saraf, J., held

Case Briefs High Courts

Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement

Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section

Case Briefs Supreme Court

“Complex” questions involving novation of contract can’t be decided by Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Supreme Court

“Detailed arguments on whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.”

Case Briefs Supreme Court

3 years’ limitation period ‘unduly long’; Necessary for Parliament to fill the vacuum by prescribing a specific period of limitation under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 1996: SC

3 years is an unduly long period for filing an application under Section 11, since it would defeat the very object of the Act, which provides for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes within a time bound period.