Category: Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 27, 34 and 37 – Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 56 and 65 – Arbitral award – Interpretation of contract – High Court held that the interpretation of the terms of the contract by the Arbitral Tribunal is erroneous and is against the public policy of India HELD The interpretation of the Arbitral Tribunal to expand the meaning of Clause 23 to include change in rate of HSD is not a possible interpretation of this contract, as the appellant did not introduce any evidence which proves the same.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SOUTH EAST ASIA MARINE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. (SEAMEC LTD.) — Appellant Vs. OIL INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana,…

Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Results In Waiver Of Right To Raise Objections On Jurisdiction After Award : SC HELD hat the specification of a “Venue” or “Place” of arbitration may not hold much significance in domestic arbitrations as against international commercial arbitrations due to the uniform applicability of the substantive & curial law.D/April 29, 2020.

Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Results In Waiver Of Right To Raise Objections On Jurisdiction After Award : SC [Read Judgment] Sanya Talwar 29 April 2020 6:49 PM Court also pointed…

Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 – Sections 4 and 6 – Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 17 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 23 – Execution of Award – Execution of an award can be only to the extent what has been awarded/decreed and not beyond the same – Arbitrator in its Award had only declared the price of land and nothing more – Thus, the question of execution of a sale deed of the land at the price so declared by the Arbitrator in its Award, could not be directed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet…

The question involved in the present appeal is the enforceability of the foreign award, against NAFED. HELD the award is ex facie illegal, and in contravention of fundamental law, no export without permission of the Government was permissible and without the consent of the Government quota could not have been forwarded to next season. The export without permission would have violated the law, thus, enforcement of such award would be violative of the public policy of India.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ALIMENTA S.A. — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and B.R.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Appointment of arbitrator – Arbitration agreement entered into between the parties provides Hong Kong as the place of arbitration – Agreement between the parties choosing “Hong Kong” as the place of arbitration by itself will not lead to the conclusion that parties have chosen Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration -HELD Section 11 has no application to “International Commercial Arbitrations” seated outside India – Words in Clause 17.1 “without regard to its conflicts of laws provisions and courts at New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction” do not take away or dilute the intention of the parties in Clause 17.2 that the arbitration be administered in Hong Kong

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MANKASTU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AIRVISUAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Arbitration…

Arbitration Act, 1940 – Arbitration proceedings – Contract agreement between Appellant and Respondent for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal (Punjab) HELD It is ordered that in addition to the Claim No.1 allowed by the High Court, the claimant is also entitled to the amount under Claim Nos.2, 3, 8 and 12

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDIGARH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…