In a recent decision the Supreme Court held that when a party raises issues pertaining to misappropriation of funds, manipulation and forging of accounts which require the production of detailed material evidence, the proper forum for the adjudication of the disputes between the parties would be a civil court and not an arbitration tribunal.
In a recent judgment the Delhi High Court affirmed the view that when an arbitration clause provides for a particular procedure for appointing an arbitrator, and also provides that on failure to follow this appointment procedure the dispute shall not be referred to arbitration at all, the dispute can be adjudicated only by a civil court.
The Supreme Court of India recently had to decide whether it has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in an international arbitration governed by a foreign law. It held that unless Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is expressly or implicitly excluded by the agreement between the parties, Part I of the act, including Section 11, will apply.
An interesting question recently came up for adjudication before the Supreme Court regarding whether an arbitration agreement can survive for the purpose of resolving disputes that arise under or in connection with the contract even if the contract's performance has come to an end on account of termination due to breach.
While deciding on an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Supreme Court recently held that in default of determination of the number of arbitrators, Section 10(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides that the tribunal is to consist of a sole arbitrator.
In a recent case the Delhi High Court had to answer the question of whether, after full and final settlement of a claim, a dispute regarding the claim amount under the terms of the arbitration clause still subsists between the parties. After accepting settlement for an insurance claim, the plaintiff later served notice on the insurer, alleging that the letter of acceptance had been obtained under duress and coercion.
In a recent case, after considering the parties' intention when executing an arbitration agreement, the Supreme Court held that the parties undoubtedly intended for any dispute that arose between them to be resolved by submitting it to arbitration. The court further held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act prescribes no particular form for an arbitration agreement.
When recently deciding an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Supreme Court held that since the plaintiff had raised no objection to the creditability of the sole arbitrator initially appointed by the defendant, it could not sustain an application for an alternative appointment at a later stage on the grounds that the replacement sole arbitrator was not a former chief justice of India.
When deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Delhi High Court set aside the award of the majority arbitrators and affirmed the views and award of the minority arbitrator. In his judgment the single judge observed that the majority had committed two jurisdictional errors.
According to a recent press release, the government has signed an agreement with the Permanent Court of Arbitration to open its regional facility in India. The establishment of the regional facility in New Delhi will be beneficial to India. Such benefits include providing a forum for international arbitrations concerning disputes that have arisen in the region and reducing the costs of international arbitration.
The interesting question of whether an arbitrator can reverse a decision of resignation on a party's request recently came up for adjudication before the Calcutta High Court. The single judge of the Calcutta High Court observed that since the arbitrator had already resigned, it was doubtful that the resignation could be withdrawn on the request of one of the parties without obtaining the other party's consent.
In Sukanya Holdings Ltd v Jayesh H Pandya the Supreme Court decided on the ambit and scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The court held that the word 'matter' in Section 8 indicates that in certain cases the entire subject matter of a lawsuit should be subject to the arbitration agreement.
In ONGC v Saw Pipes Ltd the Supreme Court decided the ambit and scope of the courts' jurisdiction where an award is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
In Bhatia International v Bulk Trading the Supreme Court ruled that domestic courts have jurisdiction in respect of international commercial arbitration matters that take place abroad. Parties to such proceedings may now approach the Indian courts for interim measures.
A recent ruling illustrates that where the existence or validity of the contract which contains the arbitration clause is challenged and there is no separate or collateral agreement, the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to make the award.
In a recent decision the Supreme Court of India held that even though an arbitration agreement was entered into under the Arbitration Act of 1940, proceedings which began after the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 will be governed by the 1996 act.
Including: Separation of Power; Foreign Law and Awards; Drawbacks; Interpretation and Application
In a recent decision the Supreme Court held that a lower court was correct in deciding that a dispute should be referred to an arbitral tribunal for determination, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996.
In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court held that if a party applies for the appointment of an arbitrator, under an arbitration agreement, asserting its claim within three years of preparation of the final bill, then the application cannot be said to be barred by the Law of Limitation.
The Bombay High Court recently considered important issues regarding its authority to enforce foreign arbitral awards and to question the specifics of a foreign tribunal’s decision.