Legal pundit

Recent supreme court case law

Latest judgment

Click here for the latest judgments (last one month ) of the Supreme Court of India.

consumer forum arbitration

Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. N.K. Modi [(1996) 6 SCC 385], it was held that the District Forum, National Commission and the State ...


Considered from this perpective, we hold that this
dispute need not be referred to arbitration under clause
[12] of the agreement and the matter could be decided on
merits by the State Commission ( consumer ) itself.

Indian Law Search/Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

You may search here without any fee.

judicial authority meaning

We are, however, not oblivious of a decision of this Court in The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi [1950 SCR 459] wherein an Industrial Tribunal functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act was held to be not a Judicial Tribunal, stating that although it has all the trappings of a court but is not a court.
The expression 'judicial authority' must, therefore, be interpreted having regard to the purport and object for which the 1996 Act was enacted. Judging the contention of the Board and having regard to the width of its jurisdiction, we are of the opinion that the Board is a judicial authority within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act.

judgment of Supreme Court regarding Court

judgment

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 1996 ACT AND THE 1940 ACT

Important judgment

Meaning of important terms:

Such as re-arbitration is possible or not etc.

MACT JUDGMENT

An interesting question has been raised in this appeal about the acceptability of claim for grant of compensation when the relatives are legal heirs but are not dependants of the deceased,

http://indian-arbitrationlaw.blogspot.com/

http://indian-arbitrationlaw.blogspot.com/

Site address some IMPORTANT & RELEVANT JUDGMENTS

IMPORTANT & RELEVANT JUDGMENTS OF
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

procedure for appointment of substitute arbitrator

When Section 15(2) says that a substitute arbitrator can
be appointed according to the rules that were applicable
for the appointment of the arbitrator originally, it is not
confined to an appointment under any statutory rule or
rule framed under the Act or under the Scheme. It only
means that the appointment of the substitute arbitrator
must be done according to the original agreement or
provision applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator
at the initial stage. We are not in a position to agree with
the contrary view taken by some of the High Courts.

Section 11 of A & C Act 1996

The legislative scheme of Section 11 is very clear. If the parties have agreed on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator or arbitrators as contemplated by sub-section (2) thereof, then the dispute between the parties has to be decided in accordance with the said procedure and recourse to the Chief Justice or his designate cannot be taken straightaway. A party can approach the Chief Justice or his designate only if the parties have not agreed on a procedure for appointing the arbitrator as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act or the various contingencies provided for in sub-section (6) have arisen. Since the parties here had agreed on a procedure for appointing an arbitrator for settling the dispute by arbitration as contemplated by sub-section (2) and there is no allegation that anyone of the contingencies enumerated in clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of sub-section (6) had arisen, the application moved by the respondent herein to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was clearly not maintainable and the said court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application and pass any order. The order dated 27.12.2004, therefore, is not sustainable.

In the matter of settlement of dispute by arbitration, the agreement executed by the parties has to be given great importance and an agreed procedure for appointing the arbitrators has been placed on high pedestal and has to be given preference to any other mode for securing appointment of an arbitrator.

limitation to file applicationu/s 34

when the award dated 12.10.2003 was passed the only option with the appellant was either to have moved an application under Section 34 within three months as required under sub-section (3) of Section 34 or within the extended period of another 30 days. But in stead of that a totally misconceived application was filed and there too the prayer was for review and with regard to mode of payment. The question of review was totally misconceived as there is no such provision in the Act for review of the award by the arbitrator and the clarification sought for as to the mode of payment is not contemplated under Section 33 of the Act. Therefore, in this background, the application was totally misconceived and the reply sent by the arbitrator does not entitle the appellant a fresh cause of action so as to file an application under Section 34(3) of the Act, taking it as the starting point of limitation from the date of reply given by the arbitrator i.e. 10.4.2004.

jurisdiction a & c act 1996

It would not be open to that party to take up the position that by refusing to go into the merits of his claim, the Arbitral Tribunal had upheld a plea that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim and hence the award or order made by it, comes within the purview of Section 16(2) of the Act and consequently is appealable under Section 37(2)(a) of the Act.

A & C Act 1996 section 16

We do not find any merit in the above arguments. The plea of "no arbitration clause" was not raised in the written statement filed by Jala Nigam before the Arbitrator. The said plea was not advanced before the civil court in Arbitration Case No.1 of 2001. On the contrary, both the courts below on facts have found that Jala Nigam had consented to the arbitration of the disputes by the Chief Engineer. Jala Nigam had participated in the arbitration proceedings. It submitted itself to the authority of the Arbitrator. It gave consent to the appointment of the Chief Engineer as an Arbitrator. It filed its written statements to the additional claims made by the contractor. The executive engineer who appeared on behalf of Jala Nigam did not invoke Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. He did not challenge the competence of the arbitral tribunal. He did not call upon the arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction. On the contrary, it submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. It also filed written arguments. It did not challenge the order of the High Court dated 10.9.99 passed in C.M.P. No.26/99. Suffice it to say that both the parties accepted that there was an arbitration agreement, they proceeded on that basis and, therefore, Jala Nigam cannot be now allowed to contend that Clause 29 of the Contract did not constitute an arbitration agreement.

requirement of reasoning in an award

"It is now well settled that an award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decisions reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires him to give reasons. The arbitrator or umpire is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him unless under the arbitration agreement or in the deed of submission he is required to give such reasons and if the arbitrator or umpire chooses to give reasons in support of his decision it is open to the court to set aside the award if it finds that an error of law has been committed by the arbitrator or umpire on the face of the record on going through such reasons. The arbitrator or umpire shall have to give reasons also where the court has directed in any order such as the one made under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act that reasons should be given or where the statute which governs an arbitration requires him to do so."

Section 8 of the A & C Act 1996

Section 8 of the 1996 Act is peremptory in nature. In a case where there exists an arbitration agreement, the court is under obligation to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement. [See Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, (2003) 6 SCC 503 and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (supra)] No issue, therefore, would remain to be decided in a suit. Existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was right in referring the dispute between the parties to arbitration.

named arbitrator

The apprehension that named arbitrator may not act fairly is without any foundation. This Court in International Authority of India v. K. D. Bali (1988 (2) SCC 360) held that there must be reasonable evidence to satisfy that there was a real likelihood of bias. Vague suspicions of whimsical, capricious and unreasonable people should not be made the standard to regulate normal human conduct. In this country in numerous contracts with the government, clauses requiring the Superintending Engineer or some official of the Government to be the arbitrator are there. It cannot be said that the Superintending Engineer, as such cannot be entrusted with the work of arbitration and that an apprehension, simpliciter in the mind of the contractor without any tangible ground, would be a justification for removal. No other ground for the alleged apprehension was indicated in the pleadings before the learned Judge or the decision of the learned Judge. There was, in our opinion, no ground for removal of the arbitrator. Mere imagination of a ground cannot be an excuse for apprehending bias in the mind of the chosen arbitrator."

Non-speaking award

The decided cases of this Court demonstrate that this Court has consistently taken the view that scope of interference in a non-speaking award is extremely limited. The Court cannot probe into the mental process of the arbitrator. The court should endeavour to support a non-speaking arbitration award provided it adhered to the parties agreement and was not invalidated due to arbitrators misconduct.

judgment

vThe award is challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds:-
A. That the writing dated 21st June, 2003 does not constitute an arbitration agreement.
(i) that the said writing only contemplates avoidance of any future dispute and does not refer to any existing dispute nor it refers to arbitration.
(ii) that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1998) 3 SCC 573 and (2004) 1 SCC 372 @ 17 an agreement for avoidance of a dispute is not an arbitration agreement.......................................................................................

judgment Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The object of the Act is to ensure that where parties can agree to resolve their differences through recourse of arbitral proceedings, every endeavour should be made to make them to traverse this avenue rather than knock at the doors of the Courts. In all such cases it is difficult to appreciate why the Plaintiff has filed a Suit when it was aware of the existence of an Arbitration Clause. In the event of the Plaintiff's ignorance of this position, no prejudice would be caused to it if the parties are referred to arbitration no sooner the position is learnt of.

judgment arbitraton

I have considered the aforesaid preliminary objection in the light of the documents placed on record. The petitioner did not challenge the appointment of the arbitrator at the very initial stage and instead submitted to his jurisdiction by filing its claims and counter-claims, and therefore, in the light of the said facts I hold that the principles of waiver and acquiescence are applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to raise the aforesaid plea.

judgment A & C Act 1996

In this application under Section 12,13,14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter be referred to as `Act' only) the petitioner prays for termination of the mandate of the sole arbitrator-respondent No.4 and appointment of another Arbitrator in his place, preferably a retired Judge.

The Courts should be always slow in terminating the mandate of an appointed Arbitrator as it results in delay of the arbitral proceedings. It is true that an Arbitrator should scrupulously avoid giving any impression that he is not independent or impartial and must disclose to the parties the circumstance, if any, referred to in Clause (1) of Section 12 of the Act but the Courts while considering such a petition should objectively examine as to whether there is any real danger of bias and the complainants apprehensions are well founded.

judgemnt u/s 16 of A & C Act 1996

The petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 1st March,2003 by Mr.Justice P.K.Bahri (Retd.) and a declaration that the Arbitration Clause in the contract is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The petitioner as a consequence seeks stay of the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal

The petitioner, as noted earlier, challenged the maintainability of the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal of Justice P.K.Bahri (Retd.) and questioned his jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act on the ground that the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties is void and un-forceable at law. It was urged that appointment of a Sole Arbitrator only by one party to the dispute violates the equitable principle that no man can be a judge in his own cause.

judgment on section 14 of A & C Act 1996

A short but important question - 'whether the mandate of an arbitrator terminates on the expiry of the stipulated period for making the award within the meaning of Section 14 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996? has arisen for determination in this case.

judgments of high courts

please find here the judgment of high courts of india

judgment of supreme court of india

you may find here the judgment of supreme court of india since 1950

Arbitration- its meaning and scope

Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution which involves the judicial determination of the dispute outside the court by one or more independent third patry(ies) called "arbitration" whose called "arbitral award" is final and binding upon the parties.
As per indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 section 2 (1) (a) "arbitration" means any arbitration whether or not administered by permanent arbitral institution.
The scope of arbitration is hidden in section 7 (1). That defines the arbitration agreement. Section 7 (1) says "in this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. " Thus it is clear that only dispute can be the subject matter of the arbitration proceeding. Parties may give their consent regarding arbitration proceeding before the dispute has been arisen.

Requirement of arbitration agreement:
Sec.7(2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.
(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
(4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in—
(a) a document signed by the parties;
(b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommuni­cation which provide a record of the agreement; or
(c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.
(5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract