Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A perusal of the impugned order shows that the arbitrator has yet not fully closed the issue and has decided to adjudicate on the issue after evidence is led on the same issue.”
Bombay High Court viewed that while awarding costs, the Tribunal considered the conduct of parties including the petitioner and, in such circumstances, held it fair and appropriate for the claimant to make a fulsome recovery of its costs.
Bombay High Court directed MCIA to substitute the arbitrator and appoint an independent arbitrator to continue with the arbitral proceedings.
Supreme Court, while allowing the present petition, appointed Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to act as the sole arbitrator.
Punjab and Haryana High Court commented that “Such an approach would defeat the intent and objective behind the incorporation of the Act of 1996, which provides for a speedy and efficacious resolution of disputes.”
Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s decision rejecting IOCL’s plea seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal to settle claims.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 79
“The Court failed to appreciate as to how the position, where not only does the respondent had the power to unilaterally appoint two out of the three arbitrators and compelled the petitioner to choose one of the panels of five arbitrators can be said to meet the test of ‘counter balancing’.”
Calcutta High Court held Arbitrator’s refusal to decide question of interest under the MSMED Act constitutes a “decision” and therefore, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arbitrator is a Judge chosen by the parties and his decision is final as long as it is founded in fairness and justice and an award cannot be passed on the ipse dixit of the arbitrator.
“As per Clause 31.16 of Letter of Intent between parties, place of arbitration was Faridabad (Haryana), which will be chosen as the seat, since seat has not been separately named and there are no other contrary indicia to show that place of arbitration is not intended to be seat of arbitration.”
Madras High Court said that if the Arbitrators are not paid their fees / costs on account of the moratorium order, the object of arbitration will get defeated, as competent Arbitrators will hesitate to become Arbitrators in a dispute involving Companies facing financial crisis.
The MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and ought to be construed in a manner that is beneficial to such enterprises.
“In certain situations, it may be expedient to leave it to the arbitrator to determine the issue as to whether stamping is insufficient, and if so, the arbitrator will take recourse to Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1889.”
The ineligibility of an Arbitrator goes to the root of his jurisdiction and the Arbitral Award cannot be considered as valid.
Without questioning the validity and legality of the arbitration clause, the Calcutta High Court appointed an Arbitrator to decide the issues raised by both the parties.
Supreme Court said that whether any particular facts constitute a cause of action has to be determined with reference to the facts of each case and with reference to the substance, rather than the form of the action. If an infringement of a right happens at a particular time, the whole cause of action will be said to have arisen then and there.
“…being a special statute the MSMED Act will have an overriding effect vis-à-vis the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
On 31-3-2023, the India International Arbitration Centre (‘Centre’) notified the India International Arbitration Centre (Criteria for Admission to the panel of arbitrators)