Section 31(1) is couched in mandatory terms. There can be no finality of Arbitral Award, except after it is signed, since signing of the Award gives legal effect and validity to it. The usage of the term ‘shall’ makes it a mandatory requirement. It is not merely a ministerial act, or an empty formality which […]Read more "Section 31(5) of The Arbitration Act"
Two-Judge Bench in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India, (2004) 3 SCC 553 analyzed a long line of precedent [K.N. Guruswamy, AIR 1954 SC 592; Gujarat State Financial Corporation, (1983) 3 SCC 379; Gunwant Kaur, (1969) 3 SCC 769] to conclude, Writs under Article 226 are maintainable for asserting contractual rights […]Read more "Writ Jurisdiction in Contractual Arena"
“Inheritance is in some sort a legal and fictitious continuation of the personality of the dead man for the representation is in some sort identified by the law with him who he represents.” In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka, (1993) 2 SCC 507 the primary question arose, whether an Arbitrator appointed by Court, by consent of parties, […]Read more "The Proof of Valid Wills III"
My Lord, Appeal under Section 37(1)(c) would be maintainable against an Order refusing to condone delay in filing an Application under Section 34? Yes. It is important to note, the expression “setting aside or refusing to set aside” an Arbitral Award has to be read with the expression “under Section 34”. A refusal to set […]Read more "Section 37 of The Arbitration Act II"
It is well settled, an Arbitration Agreement is distinct and separate; independent from the substantive commercial contract in which it is embedded. The autonomy of the Arbitration Agreement is based on the twin concepts of separability and kompetenz – kompetenz; which, though inter-related, are distinct. The Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement connotes, the invalidity, […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XXV: Doctrine of Separability of Arbitration Agreement"
An election of remedies arises when two concurrent remedies are available and the aggrieved chooses to exercise one, in which event he loses the right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action. Doctrine of Election was discussed in A.P. State Financial Corporation, (1994) 2 SCC 647; P.R. Deshpande, (1998) 6 SCC […]Read more "The Doctrine of Election"
Arbitral Process is strictly conditioned upon time limitation. This Court in P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar, (2019) 13 SCC 445 observed: “Section 34(3) reflects the principle of unbreakability. According to this ‘unbreakability’ of time-limit and true to the ‘certainty and expediency’ of the Arbitral Awards, any grounds for setting aside the Award that […]Read more "Section 34(3) of The Arbitration Act II"
Mr. Peter Leaver [Queen’s Counsel], Justice V.K. Gupta [Retd.] and Mr. Anthony Houghton [Senior Counsel] delivered their International Arbitral Award in New Delhi, on 12.05.2014. Majority Award [Mr. Peter Leaver and Mr. Anthony Houghton] was in favor of Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd. and Dissenting Award [Justice V.K. Gupta] dismissed the claim of Anglo […]Read more "Section 34 of The Arbitration Act IV / Arbitral Award Dissent"
We overrule the ratio laid down in Himangni Enterprises, (2017) 10 SCC 706 and hold, landlord-tenant disputes are Arbitrable as The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not forbid or foreclose Arbitration. However, landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by Rent Control Legislation would not be Arbitrable when specific Court or Forum has been given exclusive […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XVIII Answered: Arbitrability, The Transfer of Property Act"
The Shashoua Principle has been followed repeatedly in a series of decisions [See, BGS SGS Soma JV v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd., 2020 (4) SCC 234]. Court, in the facts of this case, is of the opinion that it is inessential to explain or notice the difference between ‘venue’ and ‘seat’. – Hon’ble […]Read more "Venue v. Seat, Arbitration"
It is not always affordable to approach a Court of Law. Even if approached, it may be years before a final decision. Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 688 had a simple answer: “Pendency is merely a localized problem, in the sense that it affects some High Courts far more than […]Read more "The Persistent Illusion of Judge-Strength"
The issue of limitation for enforcement of foreign awards, being procedural in nature, is subject to the law of the forum where the foreign award is sought to be enforced. The Arbitration Act, 1996 does not specify any period of limitation for filing an application for enforcement of a foreign award. Section 43 provides, The […]Read more "The Plea of Limitation XIV: Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards / The Revival of Ray LIII"
“Having taken note of the Arbitration Clause existing in two different set of documents between the same parties relating to the same transaction, in order to harmonize or reconcile and arrive at a conclusion as to which of the Arbitration Clauses would be relevant in the instant fact, it would be necessary for us to […]Read more "Different Arbitration Clauses"
“It is clear that ‘serious allegations of fraud’ arise only if either of the two tests laid down are satisfied, and not otherwise. The first test is satisfied only when it can be said that the Arbitration Clause or agreement itself cannot be said to exist in a clear case in which the Court finds […]Read more "Arbitrability of Fraud"
Konkan Railway Corporation v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 388 held, Section 16 empowers the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction; the Arbitral Tribunal’s authority under Section 16 is not confined to the width of its jurisdiction, but goes to the very root of its jurisdiction. Konkan Railway was decided on […]Read more "Section 4 of The Arbitration Act II"
“Paragraph 19 of Ssangyong Engineering, (2019) 15 SCC 131 noted that, the expansive interpretation given to “public policy of India” in Saw Pipes, (2003) 5 SCC 705 and Western Geco International Limited, (2014) 9 SCC 263 had been done away with and a new ground of ‘patent illegality’ was introduced which would apply to applications […]Read more "Section 34(2A) of The Arbitration Act"
“In Chandler v. Webster,  1 KB 493 Mr. Chandler rented space from Mr. Webster for viewing the coronation procession of King Edward VII to be held on 26th June, 1902. Mr. Chandler had paid part consideration for the same. However, due to the King falling ill, the coronation was postponed. As Mr. Webster insisted […]Read more "The Doctrine of Frustration of Contract II"
“While dealing with a case where instead of an odd number of Arbitrators, as is contemplated under Section 10, the parties had agreed to Arbitration of 2 Arbitrators and where objection in that behalf was not taken before the Arbitrators, a 3 Judge Bench of this Court in Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia, […]Read more "Section 4 of The Arbitration Act I"
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"