Supreme Court
Can HC Appoint Sole Arbitrator When Arbitration Clause Provides For Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator ? Supreme Court To Consider
The Supreme Court on Monday ( January 20) agreed to consider the issue of whether the High Court can appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 if the arbitration agreement between parties provides for unilateral appointment in violation of the decision in CORE v. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing the challenge to the order of the Patna High Court which refused to appoint an arbitrator under S. 11(6) of...
Supreme Court Flags Stringent Limitation Provisions Curtailing Arbitration Appeal Remedies, Urges Parliament To Address Issue
The Supreme Court raised concerns about the interpretation of limitation statutes in arbitration cases and observed that the rigid application of the law could curtail the limited remedy available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge arbitral awards.“In our view, the above construction of limitation statutes is quite stringent and unduly curtails a remedy available to arbitrating parties to challenge the validity of an arbitral award. This must be addressed...
Supreme Court Sets Aside Awards Of Over Rs 46 Lakhs Passed Against UP Govt In Sham Arbitration Proceedings
The Supreme Court on Thursday (January 9) set aside two ex-parte arbitration awards on grounds of fraud played by the litigant who appointed sole arbitrators and conducted 'sham' arbitration proceedings in a service dispute against U.P. Government and Government Hospital where he was employed. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the veracity of the ex parte awards and the arbitration agreement relied by the...
High Court's Interference Under Article 226/227 Permissible Only If Arbitral Tribunal's Order Is Patently Perverse : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today criticized the High Court's intervention under its Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitral Proceedings, where it had directed the Arbitral Tribunal to grant additional time for one party to cross-examine another, despite the Tribunal already having provided ample time for cross-examination.Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra observed that the High Court can interfere with the impugned order under its Writ...
Arbitration Act: Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2024
As the year 2024 nears its end, LiveLaw brings to you a summary of important Supreme Court judgments of the year rendered in connection with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The same are as follows:1. Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Modified Under Sections 34 & 37 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme CourtCase: S.V. Samudram v. State of Karnataka [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 14]In this case, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol reiterated that any attempt to “modify an...
S. 33 Arbitration Act | Clarification On Award Can Be Issued Even After Arbitral Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that although the Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio after passing an award, it would still retain the limited jurisdiction to clarify or correct errors in an award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision allowing the respondent to seek clarification from the Arbitral Tribunal about whether...
Arbitration Can't Be 'Optional' When Agreement Provides Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that there cannot be an 'optional' arbitration, where parties are required to mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause.Setting aside the MP High Court's decision, the Court said that there is nothing like 'optional arbitration' that could be invoked after both parties mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause. According to the Court, arbitration is not 'optional' in practice.“In our view, it cannot be said that the arbitration clause is optional in the sense...
Disputes Falling Exclusively Within Jurisdiction Of Statutory Authorities Aren't Arbitrable : Supreme Court Reiterates
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that disputes falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable.While holding so, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the dispute related to wages and termination of an employee were non-arbitrable and would be exclusively dealt with by the statutory authorities established under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (“PW Act”) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”). “Insofar as...
S. 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for the exclusion of the time spent in pursuing bona fide proceedings in a wrong forum from the computation of the period of limitation.A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Limitation Act liberally as there is only a limited window to...
S.29A Arbitration | 'Sufficient Cause' To Extend Time For Award Should Be Interpreted To Facilitate Effective Dispute Resolution : Supreme Court
Extending the time for an arbitral tribunal to pass its award, the Supreme Court recently observed that extension can be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period and the phrase "sufficient cause" under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should take color from the underlying purpose of the arbitration process (ie facilitating effective dispute resolution)."The meaning of 'sufficient cause' for extending the time to make an award must take colour from the underlying...
S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. “The scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 is limited to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. In the present case, the High...