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. Viswanathan 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 […]

Section 31(7) of The Arbitration Act VII

It is clear, if contract prohibits pre-reference and pendente lite interest, Arbitrator cannot award interest for said period. Clause 17, barring interest, is very clear and categorical. See, Sayeed Ahmed, (2009) 12 SCC 26; Kamatchi Amman Constructions, (2010) 8 SCC 767; Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, (2015) 5 SCC 718; Chittaranjan Maity, (2017) 9 SCC 611. […]

Section 9 of The Arbitration Act

Section 9 as originally enacted, has been renumbered as Section 9(1). 2015 Amendment Act has also incorporated Sub-Section (2) and Sub-Section (3). Section 9(1), as amended, enables a party to an Arbitration Agreement to apply to a Court for interim measures of protection before or during Arbitral Proceedings, or at any time after an Arbitral […]

Section 34(2A) of The Arbitration Act II

Ssangyong Engineering, (2019) 15 SCC 131 has in clear terms delineated the limited area for judicial interference, taking into account amendments brought about by 2015 Amendment Act. As has been held in Ssangyong Engineering, mere contravention of substantive law as elucidated in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 is no longer […]

Section 48 of The Arbitration Act

In Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi, (2018) 9 SCC 49 a question arose under the pari materia provision contained in Section 34 as to what the expression ‘proof’ means therein. After referring to a number of High Court Judgments, and Section 34, in which the expression “furnishes proof” is now substituted by […]

Emergency Arbitrators

Court has referred to party autonomy as being one pillar for Arbitration [Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 560; Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2016) 4 SCC 126; Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2017) 2 SCC 228; PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. […]

Section 34 of The Arbitration Act V

There can be no doubt, Section 34 of The Arbitration Act, 1996 cannot be held to include within it a power to modify an Award. It is important to remember, Section 34 is modelled on The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, under which no power to modify an Award is given to […]

Section 31(7) of The Arbitration Act VI

What would constitute ‘patent illegality’ has been elaborated in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49. Union of India v. Bright Power Projects (India) (P) Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 695 highlighted, the position of law on grant of interest under Section 31(7) of 1996 Act. Though Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa […]

The Last Word

A Diversion for Lawyers and Others

Arbitration