Arbitration Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

July 27, 2024 12:18 pm

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties — Section 11(6) —The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 — The court held that the court’s role in appointing an arbitrator is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement and not to delve into the merits of the dispute or the validity of the agreement — The court further clarified that the issue of whether a claim is time-barred or not should be left to the arbitrator to decide, and the court should not conduct an intricate enquiry into the same — The court’s role is to ensure that the parties’ intention to resolve disputes through arbitration is upheld, and the legislative intention of minimum judicial interference in arbitral proceedings is given full effect — The court’s decision aims to streamline the position of law and avoid conflicts between different decisions in the future.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 532 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. KRISH SPINNING — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B.…

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 32(2)(c) – Termination of proceedings – The dispute revolves around the legality and validity of the termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Act, 1996, involving a development agreement and a memorandum of understanding between Appellants and Respondent – The Appellant argued that the Respondent abandoned the claim by not taking steps for eight years and failing to attend meetings, justifying the termination – The Respondent argued that there was no abandonment and the proceedings could not be terminated without a positive finding that continuation was unnecessary or impossible – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that abandonment must be established and cannot be readily inferred – The court emphasized that the power under Section 32(2)(c) should only be exercised when proceedings have become unnecessary or impossible, not casually – The Court concluded that the Arbitral Tribunal committed illegality in terminating the proceedings, and the parties were directed to appoint a substituted arbitrator in accordance with the law – The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 433 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DANI WOOLTEX CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHEIL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.…

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.

May 26, 2024 sclaw

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)…

Arbitration National Highways Authority Act

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.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

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 Constitution

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.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

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

“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.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

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 Limitation

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

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

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

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.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

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

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

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

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.…

Arbitration Contract Act Stamp Act

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

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

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…

You missed

Tenders & Contracts

E-auction — Typographical error — e-auction for a manganese and iron ore block submitted a bid of 140.10% instead of its intended bid of 104.10% due to a typographical error — The court allowed the company’s appeal and ordered a fresh e-auction for the block — The company was also ordered to pay Rs 3 crore ($400,000) to the state as compensation for the delay caused by its error.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

Corporate

Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 — Paragraph 13 — Recovery of overcharged amount of drugs — Demand made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to recover an overcharged amount for a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation called Roscilox — The Court found that the appellant’s admission of purchasing the drug directly from the manufacturer made it liable under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) — The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that it was only a ‘dealer’ and not a ‘distributor’ under the DPCO, as the definitions of these terms under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive — The Court further noted that the objective of the DPCO is to control the prices of medicinal drug formulations and ensure they are made available to the common man, and thus, the provision should not be subjected to a restricted or hidebound interpretation — Appeal Dismissed.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

Service

Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 — Rules 5 and 11 — The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a judgment by the Patna High Court, which allowed a candidate to be considered for appointment as a City Manager in Bihar — The candidate had scored to meet up the minimum qualifying marks of 32% — The court found that the minimum qualifying marks were only for the written test and not for the overall selection process — The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on an executive order issued in 2007, stating that it was not applicable to the rules issued in 2014 — The court concluded that the candidate was eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment as she had met the minimum qualifying marks in the written test.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

Category: Arbitration

You missed