Arbitration

Subscribe to Arbitration
CONUNDRUM SURROUNDING SECTION 42 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

INTRODUCTION

India’s arbitration law is thorough and organic because of its ever-evolving nature, through several amendments and decisions of the courts from time to time. However, the strict wordings of certain provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”),have caused a stir, for which courts have had to step in and use the tools of interpretation to resolve such practical dilemmas. Continue Reading Conundrum Surrounding Section 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Lombardi Engineering Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether, when deciding an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[2] (“1996 Act”), for appointment of a sole arbitrator, the validity of a pre-deposit condition can be looked into on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?Continue Reading Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application

Extension under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not a possibility if application for extension is not made while mandate subsisted

The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd v Berger Paints India Limited 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2645 recently deliberated on the issue of whether Courts can extend an arbitral tribunal’s mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), after the mandate of the arbitral tribunal has been terminated.Continue Reading Extension under Section 29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not a possibility if application for extension is not made while mandate subsisted

CAN A CHALLENGE TO AN ARBITRAL AWARD BE DISMISSED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS FOR STAY ON ENFORCEMENT?

An arbitral award can be challenged by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”). Ordinarily, along with the application to set aside an arbitral award, another application is filed under Section 36(2) of the Act seeking a stay on the operation of the award. Prior to the amendment to the Act in the year 2015, mere filing of an application under Section 34 of the Act would lead to an automatic stay on the enforcement of the award. However, pursuant to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, Section 36(2) was amended to state that filing of an application to set aside an arbitral award shall not by itself render the award unenforceable and a specific order of stay of operation of the award shall have to be granted on a separate application being made for that purpose. Upon the filing of a separate application, seeking a stay on the operation of the arbitral award, the court may grant the stay, while imposing certain conditions, as it may deem fit. These conditions could entail either furnishing a bank guarantee or depositing cash with the court, to secure the arbitral award. The form and quantum of the security depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and is typically driven by the financial wherewithal and the conduct of the judgment debtor.Continue Reading Can a Challenge to an Arbitral Award be Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Conditions for Stay on Enforcement?

The Bombay High Court was recently called upon to decide an application filed by Anupam Mittal (“Applicant”), the founder of shaadi.com, seeking to restrain Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings and other directors of People Interactive (India) Private Limited (“Respondents”) from enforcing an anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore. The anti-suit injunction restrained the Applicant from proceeding with his oppression and mismanagement petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) on the ground that parties had agreed to resolve their disputes via arbitration seated in Singapore and disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement were arbitrable under Singapore law.Continue Reading Party Autonomy Restrained? Dissecting Bombay High Court’s Anti-Enforcement Injunction Order in Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Introduction

Dissolution of a Partnership under The Indian Partnership Act, 1932, “Partnership Act” can have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only the erstwhile partners but also related third parties. The process of dissolution involves activities such as settling of accounts, concluding of on-going business matters, discharging the Partnership firm’s liabilities and finally, distributing any remaining assets among the partners basis their respective shares. The Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of three years from the date of dissolution within which  the parties can agitate their claims arising from the dissolution and winding up of the firm[1]. The period of limitation rests on the notion that the date of dissolution marks the conclusion of the firm’s winding-up process and settling of the rights and liabilities of the affected parties. However, is dissolution synonymous with winding up of the firm? Can erstwhile partners not have a right to agitate their claims post the period of three years if the process of winding-up could not be completed within the timeframe? Pertinently, through this blog, we aim to analyse whether any claims surviving the period of three years, which have been left unadjudicated are deadwood or can be brought under the period of limitation and give rise to a continuing cause of action.Continue Reading Stopping the clock on claims arising from dissolution of partnership firms

Arbitrability of IP Disputes – A Step Forward?

Arbitration as a means of resolving commercial disputes has progressively become the default mechanism around the world, including in India. However, the public policy exception may be invoked to make certain subject matter inarbitrable. This article deals with one of these putatively inarbitrable areas in India: intellectual property and the reasoning of the Indian courts to render intellectual property disputes inarbitrable.Continue Reading Arbitrability of IP Disputes – A Step Forward?

EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE CHANGING PERSPECTIVE ON THE COURT’S INTERVENTION AT THE PRE-ARBITRAL STAGE: PART-II

Duro revalidated in Mayavati Trading

The Supreme Court in a three-Judge Bench decision of Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd. v. Pradyuat Deb Burman[i] (“Mayavati Trading”), considered the impending omission of Section 11(6A) of the Act vide the Amendment Act of 2019. It was conclusively stated that Section 11(6A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in Duro. The Supreme Court also expressly overruled Antique Exports, recognising that its reasoning relied on the pre-amended position, i.e., before Amendment Act of 2015 introduced Section 11(6A).Continue Reading Existence and Validity of an Arbitration Clause: A Deep Dive into the Changing Perspective on the Court’s Intervention at the Pre-Arbitral Stage: Part 2

[PART I]

The question of the Court’s intervention at the time of constitution of an arbitral tribunal underwent a seminal shift in India in 2016. This shift was brought about by the insertion of Section 11(6A)[i] in the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, No. 3 of 2016 (“Amendment Act of 2015”). The introduction of Section 11(6A) limited the Court’s role at the juncture of appointment of arbitrators. The Courts sole task now was to determine whether an arbitration agreement ‘existed’ or not. Thus, inquiries  related to ‘validity’ of an arbitration agreement were to be decided by an arbitral tribunal itself,  which had the powers to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act (a provision conforming to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985).Continue Reading Existence and Validity of An Arbitration Clause: A Deep Dive into the Changing Perspective on the Court’s Intervention at the Pre-Arbitral Stage: Part 1

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s Arupri Logistics Pvt. Ltd v Shri Vilas Gupta & Ors.[i], has held that an arbitral tribunal, in the absence of any specific power to implead, does not have the authority or jurisdiction to implead parties to arbitral proceedings. The power to implead cannot be inferred from Sections 16, 17 or 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”). Further, the arbitral tribunal does not have any residual inherent powers under the Act either, which enables it to implead third parties in the interest of justice. The Hon’ble Court noted that the arbitral tribunal owes its origin principally to well recognised and identifiable sources such as the agreement between the parties, institutional rules or national statutes, therefore, the parties or the tribunal cannot vest itself with powers that are otherwise reserved to be exercised by courts and judicial institutions.Continue Reading Consent is King: Delhi HC Holds that Arbitral Tribunal Lacks Authority to Implead Third Parties