Modify arbitral awards
Case BriefsSupreme Court (Constitution/Larger Benches)

The present controversy arose because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not expressly empower courts to modify or vary an arbitral award, and Section 34 of the 1996 Act only confers upon courts the power to set aside an award.

Judicial interference in arbitration agreement
Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Court examined the question that whether the High Court correctly exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in granting the respondent one more opportunity to cross-examine the appellant’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejected such a prayer.

Arbitration Roundup 2024
Legal RoundUpTopic-wise Roundup

From the High Court’s clarification of the definition of “court” under the Arbitration Act to the Supreme Court’s recommendation for Parliament to introduce an amendment defining a specific limitation period for the appointment of arbitrators, several key rulings have shaped the arbitration landscape. This piece highlights the notable arbitration cases of 2024.

Orissa High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

In the matter at hand, the appellant contended that the Council’s award ought to have been interfered with under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, as there was no conciliation in accordance with the procedure prescribed, a condition precedent for initiation of arbitration proceeding under Section 18 (3) of the MSMED Act.

Allahabad High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The rationale behind such stringent timelines is rooted in the principles of finality and efficiency, which are paramount in arbitration. The limitation period serves as a deterrent against undue delays and encourages parties to act promptly, thereby ensuring that the arbitration process remains expeditious.”