Before 3-Judges in Mankatsu Impex Private Limited v. AirVisual Limited, [Arbitration Petition No. 32 of 2018] it was submitted, i) declaration by 3-Judges in BGS Soma [Later Bench], to the effect 3-Judges in Hardy Exploration [Earlier Bench] did not declare ‘good law’, may not tantamount to an overriding of Hardy Exploration and ii) 3-Judges in BGS Soma […]Read more "Seat of Arbitration"
“It is not quite accurate to say that the word ‘may’, by itself, acquires the meaning of ‘must’ or ‘shall’ sometimes.” – Dharti Dhan, (1977) 2 SCC 166. “It is not to be taken that once the word ‘may’ is used, it per se would be directory. In other words, it is not merely the […]Read more "May & Shall"
We need to be cognizant of the fact that Arbitral Awards should not be interfered with in a casual and cavalier manner, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the perversity goes to the root of the matter, unpardonable under Section 34, without there being a possibility of an alternative interpretation which may sustain […]Read more "Section 34 of The Arbitration Act III"
On a lighter note, the following observations of Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., [Civil Appeal No. 9307 of 2019] is interesting for the reason that, it points out Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra failed to apply Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra. The percentage of seriousness can be […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XIII Criticized: Venue v. Seat, Arbitration"
“Section 11 was substantially amended by The Amendment Act of 2015. By virtue of the non obstante clause incorporated in Section 11(6A), Patel Engineering, (2005) 8 SCC 618 and Boghara Polyfab, (2009) 1 SCC 26 were legislatively overruled. The scope of examination is now confined only to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement at the […]Read more "Section 16 of The Arbitration Act"
My Lord, Amendments made in Section 34 are applicable to Applications under Section 34 after 23.10.2015? Yes. “Radical changes have been made by The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with effect from 23.10.2015. See, Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket (P.) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 287. We declare that Section […]Read more "Section 34 of The Arbitration Act II"
“It is clear from the bare reading of Sub-Section 1(a) of Section 14 that mandate of an Arbitrator shall terminate if it fails to act without undue delay. In the instant case, the Arbitrator became de jure unable to perform his functions. The parties agreed to bind themselves by the time fixed for the Arbitration […]Read more "Section 14 of The Arbitration Act"