Category: Arbitration

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…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Any award of an arbitrator or a tribunal that seeks to overreach a binding judicial decision, does conflict with the fundamental public policy and cannot, therefore, sustain – A judicial decision of a superior court, which is binding on an inferior court, has to be accepted with grace by the inferior court notwithstanding that the decision of the superior court may not be palatable to the inferior court – This principle, ex proprio vigore, would be applicable to an arbitrator and a multi-member arbitral tribunal as well

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S UNIBROS — Appellant Vs. ALL INDIA RADIO — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 12 – Arbitral award – Ground for challenge – Fee increase can be resorted to only with the agreement of parties; in the event of disagreement by one party, the tribunal has to continue with the previous arrangement, or decline to act as arbitrator – Yet, whether the breach of that rule, as in the present case, by insisting that the increase of fee should prevail does not in this court’s opinion, amount to a per se ineligibility, reaching to the level of voiding the tribunal’s appointment, and terminating its mandate

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING — Appellant Vs. M/S TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS (JV) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Majority award – A dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside – When a majority award is challenged by the aggrieved party, the focus of the court and the aggrieved party is to point out the errors or illegalities in the majority award

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind…

HELD the scope of jurisdiction of a court, under Section 30/33 of the Act, never extended beyond discerning if the award disclosed an “error apparent on the face of the award” which is an “error of law apparent on the face of the award and not an error of fact. The error of law can be discovered from the award itself or from a document actually incorporated therein

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S S.D. SHINDE TR. PARTNER — Appellant Vs. GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta,…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Ss 34 & 37 – The scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction.[3] It is well-settled that courts ought not to interfere with the arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner. The mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract does not entitle courts to reverse the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHENAB BRIDGE PROJECT UNDERTAKING — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Section 8 – Reference to Arbitration – Non-family shareholdings, in any event, cannot be bound by the terms of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) since they are not parties to the document – Order referring the suit to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VINOD KUMAR SACHDEVA (DEAD) THR LRS. — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KUMAR SACHDEVA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.,…

You missed