Category: Arbitration

The power under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be exercised only if, for some reason, the continuation of proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible mere existence of a reason for terminating the proceedings is not sufficient. The reason must be such that the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible.

    2024 INSC 433 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6462 OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) no.19301 of 2023)…

National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 – Section 3 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – NHAI awarded a contract to Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. for the Allahabad Bypass Project, leading to disputes over additional costs – The main issues involved claims for increased rates of royalty, sales tax, forest transit fees, and payment for embankment work – NHAI argued that price adjustments should be based on the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) and that embankment construction was part of clearing and grubbing activities – Hindustan Construction argued that additional costs due to subsequent legislation were admissible separately – The Arbitral Tribunal awarded additional costs for increased royalty, forest transit fees, and payment for embankment work – The High Court confirmed the award, and the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings, stating that the interpretation of contract terms by the Arbitral Tribunal was reasonable – The Supreme Court dismissed appeals, finding no merit in the challenges to the Arbitral Tribunal’s award and the High Court’s judgments.

2024 INSC 388 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

2024:INSC:292 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,…

“Arbitration Clause Dispute Settled: Supreme Court Rules Against Appointing Sole Arbitrator in Weir Construction Contract” – The Court analyzed the applicability of the arbitration clause and found that a general reference to the tender documents does not incorporate the arbitration clause into the contract – The Court discussed the conditions under which an arbitration clause from one document can be incorporated into another contract, emphasizing the need for a specific reference to the arbitration clause – The Court concluded that the arbitration clause does not apply to the contract between NBCC and Zillion and set aside the High Court’s orders, directing that disputes be resolved through civil courts in Delhi.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ZILLION INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The court allows the petition and appoints a former judge of the Supreme Court as the sole arbitrator – The court also suggests that the Parliament should consider bringing an amendment to the Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1996

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S APTECH LTD — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitral award – Jurisdiction to modify – Any court under Section 34 would have no jurisdiction to modify the arbitral award – Any attempt to “modify an award” under Section 34 would amount to “crossing the Lakshman Rekha” – Arbitral proceedings are per se not comparable to judicial proceedings before the Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S.V. SAMUDRAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Reference to Arbitration Clause – A plea of fraud – Two conditions which must be satisfied before the Court can refuse to refer the matter to the Arbitrator, a forum consciously decided by parties in an agreement – First is whether the plea permeates the entire contract and above all, the arbitration agreement, rendering it void or secondly, whether the allegation of fraud touches upon the internal affairs of the parties inter se having no implication in the public domain

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 35 – Contract Act 1872 – Section 2(g) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 8 and 11 – Arbitration – Enforceability of Unstamped Agreements – Unstamped Arbitration Agreements Not Void – Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act – Such agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio or unenforceable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SEVEN JUDGE BENCH IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899 ( Before : Dr…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 – Arbitration Proceedings – Applicability of Group of Companies Doctrine – Group of Companies doctrine is applicable to arbitration proceedings – Definition of “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration Act includes both the signatory as well as non-signatory parties

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH COX AND KINGS LTD. — Appellant Vs. SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Hrishikesh…

As to procedural unconscionability, the Court finds that this was a contract of adhesion. The terms of the contract were not negotiated and Plaintiff had relatively little economic strength in the transaction. As to substantive unconscionability, the arbitration clause is unreasonable insofar as it requires Plaintiff to travel to Okaloosa County, Florida for the arbitration. In many circumstances requiring a consumer to travel a substantial distance to arbitrate a claim has been found to be unreasonable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.