Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: admin

Categories
Arbitrability

Lamps Plus, Inc., et al v. Varela, 2019 SCC OnLine US SC 50

ISSUE:

Whether Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) precludes a state law interpretation of an arbitration agreement which would authorize class arbitration based on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements?

RULE:

The Doctrine of Contra Proferentem, which roughly translates to “guilt of the drafter”, usually applied in contract law states that any clause or term considered to be ambiguous in an agreement should be interpreted against the party which requestion or included the clause in the first place.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Recourse against Arbitral Awards

Megha Enterprises And Ors v. Haldiram Snacks Pvt Ltd (Judgment dated March 1).

ISSUE:

Whether the Arbitral Tribunal's decision that Haldiram's claim is not barred by limitation because Megha acknowledged her debt through email conversations complies with Section 18 of the Limitation Act?

Whether, in light of the High Sea Sale Agreements' choice of jurisdiction, the Arbitral Tribunal's decision that it had territorial jurisdiction to decide Haldiram's claims is legally sound and consistent with the parties' intentions under the agreements?

RULE:

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (A&C Act) controls the arbitration proceedings in this matter, while the Limitation Act of 1963 is consulted for concerns concerning the limitation period.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Number of Arbitrators

Lohia v. Lohia (2002) 1 Arb LR 493 (SC)

ISSUE:

Whether Section 10 is a non-derogable provision in arbitration? Whether a mandatory provision of the Act can be waived by the parties?

RULE:

The appellant contended that Section 10 is a mandatory provision of the Act. In the present matter, the Arbitral tribunal was not validly constituted, hence it should be void and invalid. Moreover, if the constitution of the arbitrators is invalid, it should also render the award void. The appellant also contended that Section 16 does not provide for any challenge of the constitution of the Arbitration Tribunal. Therefore, an invalidly constituted tribunal deems lack of jurisdiction.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Number of Arbitrators

MMTC Ltd. vs. Sterlite Industries Ltd. (1996), 6 SCC 716

ISSUE:

Whether the arbitration clause in the sales contract between MMTC and Sterlite was valid and enforceable.

Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Whether the arbitrator's award was valid and enforceable.

RULE:

Arbitration clauses in international commercial contracts are valid and enforceable in India.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Foreign Awards and their Enforcement

MSM Satellite Pvt. Ltd. v. World Sport Group Ltd. Appeal(Lodging) No. 534 of 2010 in Notice of Motion No. 1809 of 2010 in Suit No. 1828 of 2010

ISSUE:

Whether the validity of the Bombay High Court's injunction judgement, which barred WSG from pursuing ICC arbitration and favoured MSM's accusations of fraud and deception?

Whether the parties' disagreement should be resolved through Singapore ICC arbitration, as agreed in their agreement, or through Indian courts.?

RULE:

According to the New York Convention, which is similar to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, an arbitration agreement does not become void or incapable of performance just because the dispute involves charges of misrepresentation. Courts cannot refuse to refer a case to arbitration only because one side has claimed fraud. An arbitration panel has the ability to resolve disputes involving fraud or misrepresentation. Courts must send a dispute to arbitration if the parties' agreement contains an arbitration clause, unless the agreement is "void, inoperative, or impossible to perform."

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Foreign Awards and their Enforcement

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India v. Alimenta SA 2020 SCC OnLine SC 381

ISSUE:

"Whether the Indian Supreme Court's extensive review of the merits of the foreign arbitral award in the NAFED case aligns with the pro-enforcement bias stipulated in Section 48 of the 1996 Act and the New York Convention's principles of minimal judicial intervention?"

Whether a violation of India's export policy can legitimately be regarded as a violation of public policy under Section 48 of the 1996 Act, and whether this broader interpretation may lead to increased difficulties in enforcing foreign arbitrary judgments in India?"

RULE:

Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (now Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996), which allows for the refusal of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards on grounds of public policy, is one of the important legal provisions.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Foreign Awards and their Enforcement

P.E.C. Ltd v. Austbulk Shipping SDN BHD, 2018 (15)

ISSUE:

Whether an application for the execution of a foreign award under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could be dismissed if it was not accompanied by the appropriate arbitration agreement?

How the phrase "shall" should be construed in Section 47 of the Act in the context of producing documents, such as the original arbitration agreement, during the initial stage of submitting an application for the enforcement of a foreign award?

RULE:

The execution of international arbitral awards in India is governed by Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 47 requires the party seeking international award enforcement to present certain papers, including the original arbitration agreement, at the time of application.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Recourse against Arbitral Awards

Patel Engineering Ltd. v. NEEPCO [Supreme Court. 22 May 2020]

ISSUE:

Whether the Meghalaya High Court's decision to overturn the arbitral award was justified on the basis of 'patent illegality.'

Whether the Amendment Act of 2015's modifications to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 should be considered in this instance?

RULE:

Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers the court to vacate a domestic arbitral ruling if it is tainted by 'patent illegality' on the face of the award. The term "patent illegality" refers to situations in which the arbitrator's ruling is determined to be perverse, unreasonable, or opposed to substantive provisions of law, the 1996 Act, or the conditions of the contract.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Foreign Awards and their Enforcement

Reliance Industries Limited and Anr v. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC 603

ISSUE:

Whether the disputes concerning royalties, cess, service tax, and the Comptroller and Auditor General's (CAG) audit are arbitrable under the relevant laws and contractual agreements, or do they challenge the validity of the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, rendering any agreement to arbitrate void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

Whether the Arbitral Tribunal has the authority to make decisions on disputes involving royalties, cess, service tax, and the CAG audit, despite the cited rules and precedents, and whether its conclusions are enforceable in India, given the potential defense under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention based on public policy considerations?

RULE:

Disputes are arbitrated based on applicable laws, commercial agreements, and public policy considerations, and the enforceability of arbitral verdicts in India is subject to the requirements of the New York Convention, which provides for potential public policy defenses.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Foreign Awards and their Enforcement

Shin etsu chemical co ltd v. M/s Aksh Optifibre Ltd & Anr Civil Appeal No 5048 of 2005

ISSUE:

When a party objects to the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, does Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 require a prima facie finding or a final judgment on its validity?

Whether the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 aims to reduce judicial intervention in the arbitral procedure and accelerate dispute settlement by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration?

RULE:

The key problem is the interpretation of Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which focuses on the type of adjudication required when a party claims that the arbitration agreement is "null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed." The rule requires the judicial authority to evaluate whether a prima facie decision or a final ruling on the objection should be issued.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here