Arbitration Law Roundup | A recap of top Arbitration Law cases in September 2024

Educator

New member


Supreme Court explains how Non-Signatories may be bound by Arbitration Agreements

Discussing the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction and the role to be played by the referral court in the appointment of an arbitrator especially with reference to the participation of the non-signatory in the performance of the underlying contract, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI and JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ held that the conduct of the non-signatory party along with the other attending circumstances may lead the referral court to draw a legitimate inference that it is a veritable party to the arbitration agreement.

Explained | Supreme Court decision on enforcement of Arbitral Award expressed in foreign currency

While considering the appeal revolving around the issue of enforcement of an arbitral award expressed in foreign currency, the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar, JJ., had to consider the following related questions-


  • The correct and appropriate date to determine the foreign exchange rate for converting the award amount expressed in foreign currency to Indian rupees;


  • The date of such conversion, when the award debtor deposits some amount before the Court during the pendency of proceedings challenging the award.

To resolve the afore-stated questions, and considering the uncertainties regarding time-lapse between the date of the award and its enforceability and the ever-fluctuating exchange rates, the Court formulated twin principles


  1. Following the principle in Forasol v. O.N.G.C., , the date when the arbitral award becomes enforceable shall be the date for conversion. Under the , this date is when the objections against the award are dismissed, and the award attains finality.


  2. In the event that the award amount or part of it is deposited in Court pending objections, enabling withdrawal by the decree holder, the date of such deposit, shall be the relevant date for conversion as per the principle in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., .

Application for extension of time for passing arbitral award under Section 29A of Arbitration Act is maintainable even after 18-month deadline for making of award: Supreme Court

In a civil appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court held that the application for extension of time under Sections and of the (‘Act, 1996’) can only be entertained if filed before the expiry of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna* and R. Mahadevan, JJ. held that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period. The court, while adjudicating such extension applications will be guided by the principle of sufficient cause.

Further, the Court clarified that such an extension is not granted mechanically on filing of the application, and terms and conditions can be imposed while granting an extension.

‘Special equities have to partake the character of irretrievable injustice’; Delhi HC quashes award by Arbitral Tribunal to injunct invocation of Bank Guarantees

In an appeal filed under Section of the (‘1996 Act’) to challenge the award dated 10-01-2024 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising three Arbitrators, a Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J. set aside the impugned order and said that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal to stay the invocation of the Bank Guarantees (‘BGs’) furnished by Navayuga-Van OORD JV (respondent) to the Director General, Project Varsha, Indian Navy (‘DG’) (appellant) was neither sustainable on facts nor in law.

‘Statutory right created in favour of party to assail decree cannot be taken away by S.14 of IBC’; Delhi Court sets aside Arbitral award in favour of Educomp Solutions Ltd.

In a petition filed by Gurukul Sanskar School (‘School’) against Educomp Solutions Ltd. (‘Educomp’) and Edu Smart Services Pvt. Ltd. (‘Edu Smart’) to challenge the award dated 03-02-2018 passed by the Arbitrator, a Single Judge Bench of Rajesh Kumar Goel, J. said that the present case was hit by Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of the (‘Act’) and set aside the impugned award.

Delhi High Court appoints Sole Arbitrator in petition against the National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

In a petition filed under Section of the (‘Act’) to seek the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes between the parties, a Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J. stated that the petitioner had duly complied with the conciliation process in terms of Clause 26 of the Agreement and directed the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

‘Section 29-A of Arbitration Act is procedural and discretion is given to parties to extend arbitration period further for 6 months’; Madras HC upholds arbitration award passed beyond 12 months

In an appeal filed under Section of the , to set aside the order passed by the Principal District Court, wherein the Court set aside the award on the sole ground that the award has been passed beyond a period of 12 months in violation of Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and allowed the arbitration petition, R. Vijayakumar, J. after construing that Section 29-A of the Act is procedural one and discretion is given to the parties to extend the arbitration period for a further period of 6 months, the Court held that the respondents by not raising any objection before passing of the award, have not only given their implied consent but also waived their rights to raise any objection with regard to the non-passing of the award within a period of 12 months.

Further, the Court held that the award having been passed, within a period of 18 months from the date of entering upon the reference by the Sole Arbitrator, with the implied consent of the respondents after having waived their right to object, is valid in the eye of law. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted for fresh consideration.

The post appeared first on .
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock