Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Archives

Supreme Court allows CENVAT Credit Counterclaim in Arbitration: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Go Airlines (2019)

October 23, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitrator Jurisdiction, Contract Law, Hrishikesh Roy, Implied Terms, Judges, R. Banumathi, Scope of Arbitration Agreement

Supreme Court Allows CENVAT Credit Counterclaim in Arbitration: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Go Airlines (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to consider a counterclaim relating to CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit in an arbitration proceeding. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Go Airlines (India) Limited [Judgment […]

Supreme Court allows CENVAT Credit Counterclaim in Arbitration: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Go Airlines (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Contract Termination Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. M/s HSS Integrated SDN (2019)

October 18, 2019 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Arbitration Law with Section 37, Arun Mishra, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 2.8 of GCC, Contract Termination, General Conditions of Contract (GCC), Judges, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Contract Termination Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. M/s HSS Integrated SDN (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the termination of a contract by the State of Jharkhand was legal and in accordance with the terms of the contract. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. M/s

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Contract Termination Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. M/s HSS Integrated SDN (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019)

October 3, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 33, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10A, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when re-presenting a petition in the

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies evidence admissibility under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala (2019)

September 23, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Proceedings, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 151, Grounds for Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Judges, R. Banumathi

Can Parties Adduce Evidence in Section 34 Arbitration Cases? Supreme Court Clarifies. Date of the Judgment: September 23, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 924 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J. Can parties present new evidence when challenging an arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? The Supreme Court addressed

Supreme Court clarifies evidence admissibility under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in appointment of arbitrators: M/S Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman (05 September 2019)

September 5, 2019 / Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Judges, Judicial Intervention in Arbitration, R. Subhash Reddy, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11(6A) of Arbitration Act: Mayavti Trading vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman (2019) Date of the Judgment: 05 September 2019 Citation: M/S Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman, Civil Appeal No.7023 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8519 of 2019) Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, J., R. Subhash

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in appointment of arbitrators: M/S Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman (05 September 2019) Read Post »

Limitation for Arbitration Claims: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Geo Miller & Co. Case (03 September 2019)

September 3, 2019 / Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 21, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Period, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.: Supreme Court on Limitation in Arbitration LEGAL ISSUE: Whether arbitration claims are barred by limitation based on the date the cause of action arose or the date of dispute. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs.

Limitation for Arbitration Claims: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Geo Miller & Co. Case (03 September 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Under National Highways Act: Union of India vs. Balwant Singh (2019)

September 3, 2019 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, Land Acquisition Act with Section 25, National Highways Act, National Highways Act with Section 3G(5), Rohinton Fali Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Under National Highways Act: Union of India vs. Balwant Singh (2019) Date of the Judgment: September 03, 2019 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 6981-6982 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10200-10201/2019) with Civil Appeal Nos. 6983-6984 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11117-11118/2019) Judges: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Under National Highways Act: Union of India vs. Balwant Singh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Scope After Compromise Decree: Zenith Drugs vs. Nicholas Piramal (2019)

July 30, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, Compromise Decree, Contract Law, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Scope After Compromise Decree: Zenith Drugs vs. Nicholas Piramal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration clause in an initial contract can be invoked after a subsequent compromise decree has been reached between the parties. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Nicholas Piramal

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Scope After Compromise Decree: Zenith Drugs vs. Nicholas Piramal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the significance of ‘Venue’ as ‘Seat’ in Arbitration Agreements: Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. vs. Kamachi Industries Ltd. (25 July 2019)

July 25, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(e), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 20, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Venue as Seat | 25 July 2019 Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 714 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J. Can a designated ‘venue’ of arbitration in an agreement be considered the ‘seat’ of arbitration, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the courts

Supreme Court clarifies the significance of ‘Venue’ as ‘Seat’ in Arbitration Agreements: Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. vs. Kamachi Industries Ltd. (25 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due to Arbitrator’s Conflict of Interest: Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain & Ors. vs. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (24 July 2019)

July 24, 2019 / A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 12, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 13, Arbitration Law, Conflict of Interest, Impartiality of Arbitrator, Judges, R. Banumathi, Setting Aside Arbitral Award

Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due to Arbitrator’s Conflict of Interest: Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain & Ors. vs. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator’s prior professional relationship with one of the parties constitutes a conflict of interest, warranting the setting aside of the arbitral award. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law

Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due to Arbitrator’s Conflict of Interest: Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain & Ors. vs. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (24 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Stay on Arbitration Awards Against Government: PAM Developments vs. State of West Bengal (2019)

July 12, 2019 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXVII Rule 8A, Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Stay of Arbitral Award, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Stay on Arbitration Awards Against Government: PAM Developments vs. State of West Bengal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government can obtain an unconditional stay on an arbitral award for payment of money, by using Order XXVII Rule 8A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), or whether the court should impose conditions

Supreme Court Clarifies Stay on Arbitration Awards Against Government: PAM Developments vs. State of West Bengal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Fees: NHAI vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways (2019)

July 10, 2019 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31A, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Fees: NHAI vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the fee schedule for arbitrators can be determined by a prior agreement between the parties, or if it must follow the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regardless of any agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Fees: NHAI vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways (2019) Read Post »