Apex Law Journal
Apex Law Journal
An online law journal reporting latest and important judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.                                                                                                                         Click here to get free legal updates via email                                                                                                                          Click here to download forms (Address Form, List Of Documents and Memorandum Of Appearance)
User Name :
Password :
New Subscriber
Forgot Password
 

Editor

Neha Goel, Advocate

Advisory Board

S.C. Khunger, Advocate

Rohit Bansal, Advocate

Varinder Singh Kanwar, Advocate

Hittan Nehra, Advocate

Judgments on Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Saturday, March 22, 2014
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 –Section 14(2) — Held, Section 14(2) provides that if there is any controversy regarding the termination of the mandate of the arbitrator on any of the grounds referred to in the clause (a) then an application may be made to the Court – “to decide on the termination of the mandate”. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 32 — Termination of arbitral proceedings — From the language of Section 32, it can be seen that arbitral proceedings get terminated either in the making of the final arbitral award or by an order of the arbitral tribunal under sub-Section 2 — Sub-section (2) provides that the arbitral tribunal shall issue an order for the termination of the arbitral proceedings in the three contingencies mentioned in sub clauses (a) to (c) thereof.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 32(3) — Mandate of arbitral tribunal — By virtue of Section 32(3), on the termination of the arbitral proceedings, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal also comes to an end.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 32 r/w Section 14 and Section 2(1)(e) — The question whether the mandate of the arbitrator stood legally terminated or not can be examined by the court.

 
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(b) — Word ‘payment’ — The word ‘payment’ may have different meaning in different context but in the context of Section 37(1)(b); it means extinguishment of liability arising under the award — It signifies satisfaction of the award — The deposit of the award amount into the Court is nothing but a payment to the credit of the decreeholder.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) and (b) — Whether the respondent was entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award dated February 14, 2001 till the date of actual payment to the respondent? — Held, no — Once the award amount was deposited by the appellants before the High Court on May 24, 2001, the liability of post-award interest from May 24, 2001 ceased — The High Court, thus, was not right in directing the appellants to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. beyond May 24, 2001.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(b) — Whether expression “date of payment” means the date on which the entire award amount is deposited in the court or does it mean the date of actual payment? — Held, expression “date of payment” means the date on which the entire award amount is deposited in the court. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) and (b) — Where the Arbitrator has not exercised any discretion in the matter pertaining to the interest for the post-award period, the award, held, would carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till the date of payment — Further held, the date of payment means the date on which the entire award amount is deposited in the court.

 
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36 — An Award has to be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as it were a decree of the Court.

 
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Once it is held that the Arbitration Act is a selfcontained code and exhaustive, then it must also be held, using the lucid expression of Tulzapurkar, J., that it carries with it “a negative import that only such acts as are mentioned in the Act are permissible to be done and acts or things not mentioned therein are not permissible to be done”.  

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 49 and 50 — Held, the scheme of sections 49 and 50 of the 1996 Act is devised specially to exclude even the limited ground on which an appeal was earlier provided for under section 6 of the 1961 Act — The exclusion of appeal by section 50 is, thus, to be understood in light of the amendment introduced in the previous law by section 49 of the Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 37 and 50 — Held, section 37 and section 50 are not comparable because they belong to two different statutory schemes — Section 37 containing the provision of appeal is part of a much larger framework that, as seen above, has provisions for the complete range of law concerning domestic arbitration and international commercial arbitration — Section 50 on the other hand contains the provision of appeal in a much limited framework, concerned only with the enforcement of New York Convention awards — In one sense, the two sections, though each containing the appellate provision belong to different statutes.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 37 and 50 — Held, section 37 in Part I (analogous to section 39 of the 1940 Act) is not comparable to section 50 in Part II of the Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 50 — Whether an order, though not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would nevertheless be subject to appeal under the relevant provision of the Letters Patent of the High Court? — Held, no.

 
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of an arbitrator — Before an Arbitrator can be appointed under section 11 of the Act, the applicant should satisfy the learned Chief Justice or his designate that the arbitration agreement is available in regard to the contract/document in regard to which the dispute has arisen — For example if the parties had entered into two agreements and arbitration clause is found only in the first agreement and not in the second agreement, necessarily an arbitrator can be appointed only in regard to disputes relating to the first agreement and not in regard to any dispute relating to the second agreement.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 — Sections 7 and 16(1) — Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17 and 49 — Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Sections 33, 35, 38 and 40 — Whether an arbitration agreement in an unregistered instrument which is not duly stamped, is valid and enforceable? — Held, no — The court cannot act upon such a document or the arbitration clause therein — The court in such a case should impound the document under section 33 of the Stamp Act and follow the procedure under Section 35 and 38 of the Stamp Act — But if  the deficit duty and penalty is paid in the manner set out in section 35 or section 40 of the Stamp Act, the document can be acted upon or admitted in evidence.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 — Section 16(1)(a) — Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 107 — Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17 and 49 — Whether an arbitration agreement contained in an unregistered (but compulsorily registrable) instrument is valid and enforceable? — Held, yes.

 
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Conditions precedent for appointing an Arbitrator — Held, the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties to the petition under section 11 of the Act and existence of dispute/s to be referred to arbitration are conditions precedent for appointing an Arbitrator under section 11 of the Act — A dispute can be said to arise only when one party to the arbitration agreement makes or asserts a claim/demand against the other party to the arbitration agreement and the other party refuses/denies such claim or demand.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Impleadment of a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement — Held, if a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement is impleaded as a party to the petition under section 11 of the Act, the court should either delete such party from the array of parties, or when appointing an Arbitrator make it clear that the Arbitrator is appointed only to decide the disputes between the parties to the arbitration agreement.

 
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(1) and Section 31(5) — Section 31(1) obliges the members of the arbitral tribunal/arbitrator to make the award in writing and to sign it and sub-section (5) then mandates that a signed copy of the award would be delivered to each party.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(3) — The period of limitation prescribed under section 34(3) of the Act would start running only from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to/received by the party making the application for setting it aside under section 34(1) of the Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(5) — A signed copy of the award would normally be delivered to the party by the arbitrator himself.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(5) — What section 31(5) contemplates is not merely the delivery of any kind of a copy of the award but a copy of the award that is duly signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(3) readwith Section 31(5) — Whether the period of limitation for making an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award is to be reckoned from the date a copy of the award is received by the objector by any means and from any source, or it would start running from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to him by the arbitrator? — Held, it would start running from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to him by the arbitrator — The expression “..party making that application had received the arbitral award..” in Section 34(3) can not be read in isolation and it must be understood in light of what is said in section 31(5).

 
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — In a proceedings under section 11 of the Act, what is relevant is existence of arbitration agreement and not the defence on merits.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11, Column (3) and Section 7(4)(c) — Column (3) containing “Names of other parties to arbitration agreement with addresses” cannot be considered to be an assertion or declaration about the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties — Section 7(4)(c) of the Act cannot therefore be relied upon to prove the existence of an Arbitration agreement.  

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 7(4)(c) — Arbitration agreement — To constitute an arbitration agreement under section 7(4)(c) of the Act, what is required is a statement of claim containing a specific allegation about the existence of an arbitration agreement by the applicant and ‘nondenial’ thereof by the other party — An ‘allegation’ is an assertion or declaration about a fact and also refers to the narration of a transaction.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 read with Section 7(4)(c) — If in the application filed under section 11 of the Act, the applicant asserts the existence of an arbitration agreement with each of the respondents and if the respondents do not deny the said assertion, in their statement of defence, the court can proceed on the basis that there is an arbitration agreement in writing between the parties.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 7(4)(c) — Words, ‘statements of claim and defence’ occurring in section 7(4)(c) of the Act, are not restricted to the statement of claim and defence filed before the arbitrator — If there is an assertion of existence of an arbitration agreement in any suit, petition or application filed before any court, and if there is no denial thereof in the defence/counter/written statement thereto filed by the other party to such suit, petition or application, then it can be said that there is an “exchange of statements of claim and defence” for the purposes of section 7(4)(c) of the Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 2(1)(h) and Section 7 — Whether a guarantor for a loan, who is not a party to the loan agreement containing the arbitration agreement executed between the lender and borrower, can be made a party to a reference to arbitration in regard to a dispute relating to repayment of such loan and subjected to the arbitration award? — Held, no.

 
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 74 read with Section 30 — When a matter is settled through conciliation, the Settlement Agreement is enforceable as if it is a decree of the court having regard to Section 74 read with Section 30 of the AC Act. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 62, 73, 74 — Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,Sections 20 and 21 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 23, Rule 3 and Section 89 — Though the settlement agreement in a conciliation or a settlement award of a Lok Adalat may not require the seal of approval of the court for its enforcement when they are made in a direct reference by parties without the intervention of court, the position, held, will be different if they are made on a reference by a court in a pending suit/proceedings — As the court continues to retain control and jurisdiction over the cases which it refers to conciliations, or Lok Adalats, the settlement agreement in conciliation or the Lok Adalat award will have to be placed before the court for recording it and disposal in its terms — Where the reference is to a neutral third party (‘mediation’ as defined above) on a court reference, though it will be deemed to be reference to Lok Adalat, as court retains its control and jurisdiction over the matter, the mediation settlement will have to be placed before the court for recording the settlement and disposal — Where the matter is referred to another Judge and settlement is arrived at before him, such settlement agreement will also have to be placed before the court which referred the matter and that court will make a decree in terms of it — Further, held, whenever such settlements reached before non-adjudicatory ADR Fora are placed before the court, the court should apply the principles of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code and make a decree/order in terms of the settlement, in regard to the subject matter of the suit/proceeding.

 
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 14 — Authority of arbitrator — When automatically ceases to exist? — Held — The Arbitrator is bound to make and publish his award, within the time mutually agreed to by the parties, unless the parties consented to further enlargement of time.Therefore, the condition precedent for enlargement of time would depend only on the consent of the parties, that is to say, that if the parties agree for enlargement of time. If consent is not given by the parties, then the authority of the  arbitrator  would automatically ceases to exist after the expiry of the time limit fixed.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 14 — Termination of the mandate of arbitrator — Arbitrator had failed to publish the award within the time limit fixed by the parties — HC terminated the mandate of arbitrator — Held, High Court was justified in terminating the mandate of the arbitrator.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Arbitrator — Bound to make and publish his award, within the time mutually agreed to by the parties, unless the parties consented to further enlargement of time.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Award — Time for making and publishing — Enlargement of time — Condition precedent — Condition precedent for enlargement of time would depend only on the consent of the parties.  

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Enlargement of time for making and publishing of award — Whether Court has power to enlarge time for making and publishing an award under the provisions of Act? Held — It is true that apparently there is no provision under the Act for the Court to fix a time limit for the conclusion of an arbitration proceeding, but the Court can opt to do so in the exercise of its inherent power on the application of either  party — Where  however  the  Arbitration  agreement  itself  provides  the procedure for enlargement of time and the parties have taken recourse to it, and consented to the enlargement of time by the arbitrator, the Court cannot exercise its inherent power in extending the time fixed by the parties in the absence of the consent of either  of them — Jatinder Nath  Vs. M/s  Chopra Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [AIR 2007 SC 1401], General  Manager,  Department  of  Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Jacob S/o Kochuvarkey Kalliath (Dead) by LRs. And  Others  [2003  (9)  SCC  662] and National Aluminum Co. Ltd. Vs. Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd. and Another [2004 (1) SCC 540] distinguished.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 11 and 15 — Substitute arbitrator — Appointment of — Held, section 15 (2) of the Act provides that where the mandate of an arbitrator terminates, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed according to the rules that were applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator replaced — Application for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act referred  back  to  the  High  Court  for  fresh  decision — Northern Railway Administration, Ministry  of  Railway  vs.  Patel  Engineering Company  Ltd.  [2008  (10)  SCC 240] in which a decision of SC in Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited vs.  Bharat  Petroleum  Corporation  Limited  [(2007)  5  SCC  304]  was  also referred to, relied.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Appointment of a new arbitrator — Arbitration proceeding — Starting of — It is argued that the High Court had failed to appreciate that the parties had undergone the process of arbitration for a long time and it was  not  wise  to  terminate  the  mandate  of  the  arbitrator — Held, it is to be noted that the High Court in its impugned judgment had ordered Shri A.K. Gupta to hand over the relevant materials  relating  to  the  proceedings  to  the  newly  appointed  arbitrator — Thus, such an action would inherently make it clear for the newly appointed arbitrator to conduct the proceedings and it is not required from him to start the proceedings from scratch all over  again — Plea negated.

 
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34(3) — Amendment in the application for setting aside the arbitral award after expiry of period of limitation — Held, it is true that, the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Vastu Invest and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (2) Arb. LR 315 (Bombay) held that independent ground of challenge to the arbitral award cannot be entertained after the period of three months plus the grace period of thirty days as provided in the proviso of sub-section (3) of Section 34, but, in our view, by ‘an independent ground’ the Division Bench meant a ground amounting to a fresh application for setting aside an arbitral award — The dictum in the aforesaid decision was not intended to lay down an absolute rule that in no case an amendment in the application for setting aside the arbitral award can be made after expiry of period of limitation provided therein.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Amendment in the application for setting aside the arbitral award — Held, every amendment in the application for setting aside an arbitral award cannot be taken as fresh application.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 and 37 — In the case of Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal 1987 (Supp.) SSC 93 this Court held that a new ground cannot be raised or inserted in an election petition by way of an amendment after the expiry of the period of limitation — It may not be proper to extend the principles enunciated in Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal 1987 (Supp.) SSC 93 in the context of the provisions contained in Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to an application seeking amendment to the application under Section 34 for setting aside an arbitral award or an appeal under Section 37 of 1996 Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 37 and 34(3) — Application for amendment in the memorandum of arbitration appeal — Dismissed by the Learned Single Judge on the ground that the ground not initially raised in a petition for setting aside the arbitral award can not be permitted to be raised beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 34(3) — It was also observed that the proposed amendments in the memorandum of arbitration appeal are not even sought to the grounds contained in the application under Section 34 — Held, the grounds sought to be added in the memorandum of arbitration appeal by way of amendment are absolutely new grounds for which there is no foundation in the application for setting aside the award — Obviously, such new grounds containing new material/facts could not have been introduced for the first time in an appeal when admittedly these grounds were not originally raised in the arbitration petition for setting aside the award — Moreover, no prayer was made by the appellant for amendment in the petition under Section 34 before the concerned court or at the appellate stage — As a matter of fact, the grounds of appeal which are now sought to be advanced were not originally raised in the arbitration petition and that the amendment that is sought to be effected is not even to the grounds contained in the application under Section 34 but to the memo of appeal — In the circumstances, it cannot be said that discretion exercised by learned Single Judge in refusing to grant leave to appellant to amend the memorandum of arbitration appeal suffers from any illegality — Appeal dismissed.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Whether incorporation of additional grounds by way of amendment in the application under Section 34 tantamounts to filing a fresh application in all situations and circumstances? — Held, if that were to be treated so, it would follow that no amendment in the application for setting aside the award howsoever material or relevant it may be for consideration by the Court can be added nor existing ground amended after the prescribed period of limitation has expired although application for setting aside the arbitral award has been made in time — This is not and could not have been the intention of Legislature while enacting Section 34 — Moreso, Section 34(2)(b) enables the Court to set aside the arbitral award if it finds that the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force or the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India — The words in Clause (b) “the Court finds that” do enable the Court, where the application under Section 34 has been made within prescribed time, to grant leave to amend such application if the very peculiar circumstances of the case so warrant and it is so required in the interest of justice. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 — Whether in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from an order refusing to set aside the award, an amendment in the memorandum of appeal to raise additional/new grounds can be permitted? — Held, yes — Rule laid down in the case of L.J. Leach and Company Ltd., v. Jardine Skinner and Co. (1957) SCR 438 and Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others (1957) SCR 595, should be be applied when the Court is called upon to consider the application for amendment of grounds in the application for setting aside the arbitral award or the amendment in the grounds of appeal under Section 37 of 1996 Act.

 
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 15(2) — Substitute arbitrator — Appointment of — Held, section 15(2), which regulates appointment of a substitute arbitrator, requires that such an appointment shall be made according to the rules which were applicable to the appointment of an original arbitrator — The term ‘rules’ used in this sub-section is not confined to statutory rules or the rules framed by the competent authority in exercise of the power of delegated legislation but also includes the terms of agreement entered into between the parties.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 15(2) — Term ‘rules’ — Held, the term ‘rules’ appearing in Section 15(2) takes within its fold not only the statutory rules, but also the terms of agreement entered into between the parties.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 15(1) — Held, section 15(1) provides for termination of the mandate of arbitrator where he withdraws from office for any reason or by or pursuant to agreement of the parties and not where the arbitrator appointed by either party declines to accept the appointment or refuses to act as such.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Words ‘refuse’ and ‘withdraw’ — Held, the words ‘refuse’ and ‘withdraw’ have not been defined in the Act. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 15(2) — Applicability of — Held, section 15(2) of the Act does not per se apply to a case where an arbitrator appointed by a party to the agreement declines to accept the appointment or refuses to arbitrate in the matter — Of course in a given case, refusal to act on the arbitrator’s part can be inferred after he has entered upon arbitration by giving consent to the nomination made by either party to the agreement.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 15(2) and Section 11(6) — In the present case, the arbitrator appointed by respondent No.1, namely, Shri S.N. Huddar declined to accept the appointment/arbitrate in the matter on the ground that in his capacity as Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer, he was associated with Koyna Hydel Project implying thereby that he may not be able to objectively examine the claims of the parties or the other party may question his impartiality — To put it differently, Shri S.N. Huddar did not enter upon the arbitration — Therefore, there was no question of his withdrawing from the office of arbitrator so as to enable respondent No.1 to appoint a substitute arbitrator — In any case, in the absence of a clear stipulation to that effect in the agreements, respondent No.1 could not have appointed a substitute arbitrator and the learned designated Judge gravely erred in appointing the third arbitrator by presuming that the appointment of Shri S.L. Jain was in accordance with law — Respondent No.1 cannot draw support from the ratio of the judgment in Yashwith Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 204].

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 11, 14 & 15 — Provision of Sections 11, 14, &15 discussed.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 14 and 15 — Sections 14 and 15 enumerate the circumstances in which the mandate of an arbitrator shall terminate.

 
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8(2) — It is mandatory to file the original copy of the partnership deed.

 

 
Monday, September 14, 2009
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 read with Section 10 (2) — Petition for appointment of arbitral tribunal — The Arbitral clause i.e. 12 (2) of the agreement between the parties does not indicate the numbers of arbitrators to be appointed while reciting that the matter be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions contained in the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — The respondent prayed for appointment three arbitrators in the matter — Whether the court can exercise its discretion to appoint three arbitrators in variance of arbitral clause of the agreement and provisions contained in section 10 of the Act? — Held, no — Arbitral tribunal in the instant case would be consisting of a sole arbitrator. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 10 (1) and Section 10 (2) — Composition of Arbitral Tribunal — Held, Section 10(1) provides that the parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number — Section 10(2) provides that  failing the determination referred to in sub-section (1), the arbitral tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 10 — UNCITRAL MODEL LAW, Article 10 — Held, Article 10 of the UNCITRAL model law has close similarity with Section 10 of the said Act — Section 10 deviates from Article 10 of the UNCITRAL law only in the sense that Section 10(1) of the Act provides that despite the freedom given to the parties to determine the number of arbitrators such numbers shall not be even number — But in default of determination of the number, Section 10(2) provides the tribunal is to consist of a sole arbitrator — Therefore, scheme of Section 10(2) of the Act is virtually similar to Article  10.2 of the UNCITRAL model law.

 
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7) — Award of interest of Arbitrator — Whether the Arbitrator can award interest for pre-reference period and pendente lite, when the contract prohibits the employer from entertaining any claim for interest? — Held, no — Appeal party allowed — The Judgment of the High Court setting aside the award of interest upto the date of award is affirmed.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7) — Difference between pre-reference period and pendente lite period — Held, having regard to sub-section (7) of section 31 of the Act, the difference between pre-reference period and pendente lite period has disappeared in so far as award of interest by arbitrator — The said section recognises only two periods and makes the following provisions :

(a) In regard to the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made (pre-reference period plus pendente lite), the arbitral tribunal may award interest at such rate as it deems reasonable, for the whole or any part of the period, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

b) For the period from the date of award to the date of payment the interest shall be 18% per annum if no specific order is made in regard to interest. The arbitrator may however award interest at a different rate for the period between the date of award and date of payment.    

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) — Award of interest by Arbitrator — Agreement between the parties barred payment of interest — Held, Arbitrator could not have awarded interest upto the date of the award.


 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Interest — Any provision in the contract barring interest, held, will operate only till the date of award and not thereafter.

 
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 31(8) and 38 — Provisions of sections 31(8) and section 38, held, operate in the absence of agreement with regard to cost.  

 
Friday, August 15, 2008
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8(2) — Held, Section 8(2) of 1996 Act is a mandatory provision — Original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof is required to be filed along with the application under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of 1996 Act.

 
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Limitation Act, 1963, Section 14 — Whether the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to an application submitted under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside the award made by the arbitrator? — Held, yes — Further held, merely because it is held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to an application filed under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside an award, one need not conclude that provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would also not be applicable to an application submitted under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 and Section 29(2) — Application for setting aside an award — Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act — Held, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to an application filed under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside an award because the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded because of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Powers under Section 34 of the Act, held, can be exercised by the court only if the aggrieved party makes an application — The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act, cannot be exercised, suo motu.

 
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 1996 Act says that the application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Application of — For application of Section 8, it is absolutely essential that there should be an arbitration agreement between the parties.

 
Friday, November 16, 2007
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Power under Section 9 of the Act, held, is not totally independent of the well known principles governing the grant of an interim injunction that generally governs the courts in this connection — Relevant provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be kept out of consideration — Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sections 38 and 39. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — It cannot certainly be inferred that Section 9 keeps out the substantive law relating to interim reliefs.

 
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Photocopies of the agreement, held, could be taken on record under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for ascertaining the existence of arbitration clause.

 
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — Once a party files an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, the other party, held, extinguishes its right to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the clause of the agreement thereafter — Appeal dismissed.

 
Monday, May 14, 2007
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e) and 37(2) — Appeal — A forum of an appellate court must be determined with reference to the definition thereof contained in the 1996 Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 2(1)(e) and 37(2) — Appeal — High Court having no original jurisdiction — Appeal filed under Section 37(2) of the 1996 Act, held, was not maintainable before the High Court.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Award — Reasons are required to be stated unless agreed to otherwise by the parties.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Court's intervention — The court's intervention is sought to be minimized under the provisions of the 1996 Act not only having regard to the concerns expressed in the international community as regards delay in the arbitration proceedings but also in view of the fact that an award under the 1996 is to be a reasoned one.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Court's intervention in relation to a reasoned and unreasoned award — Power of the court's intervention in relation to a reasoned award and unreasoned one would be different — Whereas in relation to an unreasoned award, the court's jurisdiction to interfere with the award was absolutely limited, a greater latitude had been given in relation to a reasoned award.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 16 — Party questioning the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator has an obligation to raise the said question before the Arbitrator - Such a question of jurisdiction could be raised if it is beyond the scope of his authority — Such a question was required to be raised during arbitration proceedings or soon after initiation thereof as a preliminary issue. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Arbitrator — Jurisdiction — Held, arbitrator is entitled to determine his own jurisdiction — In the event, the Arbitrator opines that he has jurisdiction in the matter, he may proceed therewith, which order can be challenged along with the award in terms of Section 34 of the 1996 Act — If the Arbitrator opines that he has no jurisdiction to hear the matter, an appeal lies before the court — 'Court' has been defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 37(2), 37(3) and 5 — Held, an appeal in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 37 is a statutory appeal — Further held, it may be true that Sub-section (3) of Section 37 of the 1996 Act debars a second appeal from an appellate order under Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof but having regard to Section 5 of the 1996 Act, the provisions for second appeal may be held to be superfluous.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 37(2) and 42 — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, Section 31(4) — Distinction between an appeal and an application — There exists a distinction between an appeal and an application — Whereas Section 31(4) of the 1940 Act or Section 42 of the 1996 Act provides for an application, Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the 1996 Act provides for a statutory appeal.

 
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 34 — Interference by Civil Court in arbitral award — Scope of — Held, award contrary to substantive provisions of law or the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or against the terms of the contract, would be patently illegal, and if it affects the rights of the parties, is open to interference by court under Section 34(2) of the Act.

 
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(6) — Appointment of arbitrator — If one party demands the opposite party to appoint an Arbitrator and the opposite party does not make an appointment within 30 days of the demand, the right of appointment does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days — If the opposite party makes an appointment even after 30 days of the demand but before the first party has moved the Court under Section 11, that would be sufficient — In other words, in cases arising under Section 11(6), if the opposite party has not made an appointment within 30 days of demand, the right to make appointment is not forfeited but continues, but an appointment has to be made before the former files application under Section 11 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator only then the right of the opposite party ceases — Datar Switchgear Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. and another, (2000)8 S.C.C. 151 relied — Appeal allowed.

 
Monday, October 09, 2006
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Limitation Act, 1963, S.14 — Applicability of section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Held, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not expressly exclude the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act — Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

 
Friday, August 25, 2006
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — For maintaining an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, service of notice under the arbitration agreement, held, is not mandatory.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8(1) — Expression ‘first statement on the substance of the dispute’ — Held, expression ‘first statement on the substance of the dispute’ contained in Section 8(1) of the 1996 Act must be contra-distinguished with the expression ‘written statement’ — It employs submission of the party to the jurisdiction of the judicial authority. 

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Reference — Respondent-firm, filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Appellants from in any manner blacklisting the Respondent-Firm or terminating the Consignment agency Contract — Filing an opposition to the interim injunction, held, would not preclude appellant from filing an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act — Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1&2, Section 94.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 8 — Once it is found that the dispute between the parties arose out of the contract, Section 8 of the 1996 Act would be attracted.

 
Monday, March 27, 2006
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 — Sections 11(6), 16 — Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal — Power of Chief Justice or his designate under S.11(6) — Whether administrative in nature? — Held, no — It is judicial in nature — Reason being, adjudication is involved in constitution of an arbitration tribunal.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 — Section 11(6) — Constitution of Arbitral Tribunal — It is obligatory on the part of Chief Justice to issue notice to the opposite party when he is moved under S.11 — The notice to the opposite party cannot be considered to be merely an intimation to that party of the filing of the arbitration application and the passing of an administrative order appointing an arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal — It is really the giving of an opportunity of being heard — Constitution of India, Article 14.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 — Sections 34, 37 — Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 — Orders passed by Arbitral Tribunal, held, cannot challenged under Articles 226, 227 of Constitution of India.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 — Section 11(6) — Whether the Chief Justice of the High Court can designate a district judge to perform functions under S.11(6) of the Act? — Held, no — Designation of a district judge as the authority under Section 11(6) of the Act by the Chief Justice of the High Court, held, is not warranted on the scheme of the Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 — Section 11(6) — Constitution of India, Article 136 — Since an order passed the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated judge of that court under S.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a judicial order, an appeal, held, will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court — Further held, there can be no appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court designated by him while entertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Act.

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 — Sections 11(6) & 16 — In a case where an arbitral tribunal has been constituted by the parties without having recourse to Section 11(6) of the Act, the arbitral tribunal will have the jurisdiction to decide all matters as contemplated by Section 16 of the Act.   

 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 — Section 11(6) — The Power under Section 11(6) of the Act, in its entirety, held, could be delegated, by the Chief Justice of the High Court only to another judge of that court and by the Chief Justice of India to another judge of the Supreme Court — In case of designation of a judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, the power that is exercised by the designated judge would be that of the Chief Justice as conferred by the statute.

 
Act Topic
Rule Citation
Keyword
 
Free Text Search
 
Follow us on :
(Best view with 1024x768 Resolution)
© All rights including Copyrights and rights of translations etc, reserved and vested exclusively with Deepak Publications. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrival system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright owner.

By using this site, you (and any entity on whose behalf your are acting) are consenting to be bound by Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy & Disclaimer Clause.