Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34

Supreme Court clarifies the nature of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (30 July 2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34(6), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Indu Malhotra, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Nature of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration Act in Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti vs State of Bihar (2018) Date of the Judgment: 30 July 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 694 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a procedural lapse in filing an application under Section 34 of the […]

Supreme Court clarifies the nature of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (30 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Dealership: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. T. Natarajan (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Administrative Law, Arbitration, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 226, Constitution of India with Article 227, Contract Law, Dealership Agreements, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Dealership: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. T. Natarajan (2018) Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2018 Citation: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. T. Natarajan, Civil Appeal No. 6748 of 2018, arising out of SLP (C) No. 33100 of 2015 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Dealership: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. T. Natarajan (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 18, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Misrepresentation, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 316 Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J. Can a party avoid a contract if they were misled about the

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Challenging Arbitration Award: AnilKumar vs. Pravinchandra (2018)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Condonation of Delay, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Challenging Arbitration Award: AnilKumar vs. Pravinchandra (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Limitation period for challenging an arbitral award. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (D) Thr. LRs. vs. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel and Ors. Judgment Date: 27 March 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Challenging Arbitration Award: AnilKumar vs. Pravinchandra (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction objections in arbitration: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Jurisdiction in Arbitration, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction objections in arbitration: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a plea of jurisdiction can be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if not raised under Section 16 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Lion Engineering

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction objections in arbitration: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (22 March 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an objection to jurisdiction can be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if not raised earlier under Section 16 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Lion

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (22 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act to Arbitration Proceedings: BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket (2018) INSC 227

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act to Arbitration Proceedings: BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket (2018) INSC 227 LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 to pending arbitral and court proceedings. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act to Arbitration Proceedings: BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket (2018) INSC 227 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Interim Awards under Arbitration and Conciliation Act: IFFCO vs. Bhadra Products (23 January 2018)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Interim Awards Under Arbitration Act: IFFCO vs. Bhadra Products (2018) Date of the Judgment: 23 January 2018 Citation: M/S Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-Operative Limited v. M/S Bhadra Products (2018) INSC 47 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J. and Navin Sinha, J. Can an arbitrator’s decision on the issue of limitation be considered an interim

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Interim Awards under Arbitration and Conciliation Act: IFFCO vs. Bhadra Products (23 January 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Contract Dispute: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited & Ors. (18 January 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Ashok Bhushan, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 39, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 53, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 63, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited & Ors. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Arbitral Tribunal’s award was justified in holding Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) liable for breach of contract due to non-supply of location lists, and whether the damages awarded were

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Contract Dispute: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. M/S. Datar Switchgear Limited & Ors. (18 January 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award of Interest: Union of India vs. M/s. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 13(3), General Conditions of Contract, Judges, Navin Sinha

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral tribunal can award interest on claims when the contract contains a clause prohibiting interest, and whether such an issue can be raised for the first time in appeal. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. M/s. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 08 December 2017 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award of Interest: Union of India vs. M/s. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs equitable payment in construction dispute: Rajkamal Builders vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (2008)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, R.V. Raveendran

Date of the Judgment: September 17, 2008 Judges: R.V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta Can a contractor be left unpaid for an extended period due to disputes between statutory bodies? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case involving Rajkamal Builders and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), concerning the construction of a bridge

Supreme Court directs equitable payment in construction dispute: Rajkamal Builders vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top