Random Collectibles of Justice M.R. Shah at Supreme Court

02-11-2018 – 15-05-2023 The rule flowing from the maxim ‘generalia specialibus non derogant’ has been i) considered in Hari Shankar Jain, (1978) 4 SCC 16 and ii) explained in Mary Seward v. Owner of “Vera Cruz”, (1884) 10 AC 59, 68. Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts, [Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 87-101 of 2014]. […]

Arbitration Notice

As per Section 21 of The Principal Act, Arbitral Proceedings commence on date on which a request for Arbitration is received. Union of India v. Parmar Construction Company, (2019) 15 SCC 682, which is directly on point, specifically observed, The Amendment Act shall not apply to Arbitral Proceedings which commence, before coming into force […]

Referred to Larger Bench XXV Answered: Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement

Intercontinental Hotels Group (India) Private Ltd. v. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 83 on issue of insufficiently/incorrectly stamped documents, proceeded to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – considering, time-sensitivity. A sufferance of stamp deficiency is a curable defect. Arbitration Act does not specifically […]

Writ Jurisdiction in Contractual Arena II / The Revival of Ray LXXXVIII

In Banchhanidhi Rath v. State of Orissa, (1972) 4 SCC 781 this Court declared, if a right is claimed in terms of a contract such a right cannot be enforced in a Writ Petition. In Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr., (1975) 1 SCC 737 a Constitution Bench of this Court observed, Writ […]

Section 7 of The Arbitration Act

Three recitals strongly point towards an unambiguous intention of parties to refer their dispute(s) to Arbitration. Even though Clause 18 lacks certain essential characteristics, in a Development Agreement which otherwise fortifies intention of parties to Arbitrate, deficiency of words cannot legitimize annulment of an Arbitration Clause. Three-Judge Bench in Enercon (India) Ltd., (2014) 5 SCC […]

Section 31(7) of The Arbitration Act X

Sub-Section 7 of Section 31 deals with pre-award and post-award interest. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited v. Governor, State of Orissa (2015) 2 SCC 189 overruled State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora, (2010) 3 SCC 690. Justice Sapre was of view, Arbitrator only has discretion to determine rate of post-award interest. Justice Bobde did not […]

Fourth Schedule Fee

Amendments made by Arbitration Amendment Act, 2019 have been somewhat a non-starter. _____ Fourth Schedule came into effect on 23.10.2015. Fourth Schedule is not applicable to International Commercial Arbitrations and where Arbitrators’ Fees are to be determined in accordance with Rules of Arbitral Institutions. _____ Arbitrator’s Fees must be fixed at inception to avoid unnecessary […]

Referred to Larger Bench XXX: Section 12(5) of The Arbitration Act V

Three Judges, on 11.01.2021, in Union of India v. M/s. Tantia Constructions Limited, Special Leave Petition (Civil) 12670 of 2020 prima facie disagreed with Three Judges in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), Civil Appeal No. 9486-9487 of 2019. Three Judges, on 16.08.2022, in JSW Steel v. South Western Railway, Special Leave […]

Referred to Larger Bench XXVIII: Chloro Controls

Court must examine ambit of Doctrine of Group of Companies. Ever since expounded in Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., (2013) 1 SCC 641 it has been utilized in a varied manner. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Canara Bank, (2020) 12 SCC 767 observed, Group of Companies Doctrine can be […]

Section 31(7) of The Arbitration Act IX / The Revival of Ray LXXXV

Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Harish N. Salve is justified in relying on Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited v. Governor, State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Parag P. Tripathi submits, Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited would not be of any assistance. It will be apposite to refer to Regional Manager v. Pawan […]

Section 11(6) of The Arbitration Act V

Sole Arbitrator was appointed by parties themselves by mutual consent. There was no written agreement/contract containing an Arbitration Clause. Thus, an application under Section 11(6) was not maintainable. Whether Arbitrator’s mandate was terminated under Section 14(1)(a) could not be decided on an application under Section 11(6) and shall have to be considered by Court on […]

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers II

The Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 (‘State Act’) was reserved for consideration of President of India and Presidential assent has been obtained. Recently, G. Mohan Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 440 has observed, whole exercise of pointing out any repugnancy, after receiving assent of […]

Non-Signatories to Arbitration III

The principle for binding Non-Signatories as laid down in Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., (2013) 1 SCC 641 was applied in context of a Domestic Arbitration in Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises, (2018) 15 SCC 678. Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi & […]

Section 31(7) of The Arbitration Act VIII

Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. Governor, State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 overruled State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora, (2010) 3 SCC 690. While giving a concurring opinion, Justice Sapre made pertinent observations: “Section 31(7)(b) uses words ‘Arbitral Award’ and not ‘Arbitral Tribunal’. ‘Arbitral Award’ as held, is made in respect of a ‘sum’ […]

Section 12(5) of The Arbitration Act IV

Therefore, as per Amendment Act, 2015 [Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 read with Seventh Schedule], all of them have become ineligible to become Arbitrators and to continue as Arbitrators. Section 12 has been amended by Amendment Act, 2015 based on recommendations of Law Commission, which specifically dealt with issue of ‘Neutrality of Arbitrators’. An identical […]

Section 34(4) of The Arbitration Act

To differentiate between ‘findings’ and ‘reasons’, Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan relied on Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das, AIR 1965 SC 342. It is clear, “finding is a decision on an issue”. J. Ashoka v. University of Agricultural Sciences, (2017) 2 SCC 609 held, “reasons are the links between the materials on which […]

The Nature of Judicial Power: Article No. 1101

The question had been floating for a while. It was January 1, 2019 when I wondered who amongst then Chief Justices of HCs, if elevated, could be our 51st CJI. January 18, 2019 – we finally received an answer. CJI No. 51 would be Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna who wasn’t ever a Chief Justice of […]

Fraud I

As per settled proposition of law, mere mentioning and using of word ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ is not sufficient to satisfy test of ‘fraud’. Hon’ble Justice Vivian Bose, Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, (1951) SCR 548: “Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is – in cases of fraud, undue influence and […]

Section 33 of The Arbitration Act / Arbitration of Gold

A dispute arose relating to recovery of 3648.80 grams of pure gold. Arbitration Clause was invoked. High Court appointed a Retired District Judge as Sole Arbitrator. Gyan Prakash Arya was directed, “return 3648.80 grams of pure gold within three months along with interest @18% per annum calculating value of gold at Rs. 740/- (Rupees Seven […]

Time of Essence

Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited was formerly known as Remi Metals Gujarat Limited. Arbitral Tribunal held, merely having a clause in contract making ‘time of essence’ would not be determinative. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Remi Metals (now Welspun), submitted, view taken by Arbitral Tribunal was reasonable, plausible and can be sustained. We need to ascertain […]

The Last Word

A Diversion for Lawyers and Others

Arbitration