“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"
“Section 11(6A) was added by The Amendment Act of 2015. Section 3 of The Amendment Act of 2019 insofar as it pertains to the omission of this Sub-Section has not yet been brought into force. The omission of the Sub-Section is not so as to resuscitate the law that was prevailing prior to The Amendment […]Read more "Section 11(6A) of The Arbitration Act"
“To read Section 36, prior to The 2015 Amendment Act, as inferring something negative, namely, that where the time for making an application under Section 34 has not expired and therefore, on such application being made within time, an automatic-stay ensues, is to read something into Section 36 which is not there at all. This […]Read more "Section 36 of The Arbitration Act"
It is true that unless agreed, The Amended Act shall not apply to Arbitral Proceedings, commenced before the The Amendment Act, in accordance with The Principal Act. “In Union of India v. M.P. Gupta (2004) 10 SCC 504; Union of India v. V.S. Engineering (P) Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 240; Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate (2009) […]Read more "Named Arbitrators"
Dicitex was facing financial distress and economical duress. Oriental Insurance had insisted Dicitex to sign a clean discharge voucher and to withdraw the letter of protest addressed by it, failing which, Oriental Insurance would not release the amount that was reflected in the discharge voucher. HC allowed an application under Section 11(6), preferred by Dicitex, […]Read more "Section 11(6) of The Arbitration Act III"