Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court said that when there is a reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, the arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to the second contract unless there is a specific mention/reference thereto.
“Prima facie, Respondents 3-5 are a veritable party to the loan agreement as they are connected with the loan documents and form part of the loan transaction.”
“The expression ‘public policy’ is of wider amplitude and hence, where award passed by arbitral tribunal is against the terms of contract or against law of land for time being in force, such an award is against public policy of India and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
“It needs no re-articulation that one of the cardinal principles of arbitration is, that since arbitration is a remedy that is founded on consent of parties, the agreed procedure for appointment of an arbitrator must be scrupulously followed. However, the same is not done in the present case.”
Where parties decide to put an end to the original contract as if it never existed and substituted a new contract with it, then in such a situation the original contract is extinguished by the substituted one and the arbitration clause of the original one perishes with it.
Unilateral Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator vitiates the proceedings of Arbitration.
Supreme Court refused to give effect to the appointment of an officer of the Ministry of Law and Justice as an arbitrator.
Even if the Arbitrator is successful in justifying his reasons for deciding a rate of interest, the Agreement between the parties being the birth-giver, should be held at a higher stature when it concerns an issue that has been pre-decided and mutually agreed upon by the parties.
Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between both the parties.
Delhi High Court: In a review petition filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on behalf
The Court, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act, can refuse to refer the parties to arbitration only where “it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny.”
Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant petition, Aravind Kumar, C.J., said that the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., allowed an arbitration petition by appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the contesting parties.
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., reiterated that no party could be permitted to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, as the same
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., refused to interfere in the interim arbitral award whereby the sole arbitrator had allowed certain claims of
Delhi High Court: J.R. Midha, J., in view of serious doubts on the independence of sole arbitrator as named in the arbitration
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., decides a matter covering various aspects of the arbitration agreement. Instant petition under Section 11 of
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., while addressing the matter in respect to the invocation of an arbitration clause expressed that: “…the
Delhi High Court: Kameswar Rao, J., decided a petition wherein on the invocation of the arbitration clause, one of the parties appointed
Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., while addressing the matter stressed upon the essentiality of Novation and Arbitration Agreement. Factual Matrix The