2022 SCC Vol. 10 Part 2
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 14(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) r/w Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) — Application seeking termination of
arbitration and conciliation act
Supreme Court Post Vidya Drolia: Reconsidering Referral Jurisprudence in India
by Senu Nizar† and Velpula Audityaa††
Mandatory and Directory Provisions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
by Manavendra Mishra† and Alok Vajpeyi††
Explained| Three types of issues that can be considered in an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Telangana High Court, wherein the High Court dismissed the application
Call for Papers | RGNUL RSRR Volume 9 Issue 2 [Submit Abstract by December 20, 2022]
About RSRR The RGNUL Student Research Review (RSRR) Journal is a bi-annual, student-run, blind peer-reviewed, flagship journal based at Rajiv
Preliminary Inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
by Ayushi Raghuwanshi*
Uttaranchal High Court | Commercial Court cannot modify arbitral award in absence of manifest and patent error/illegality
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. allowed appeals filed by the
2022 SCC Vol. 9 Part 2
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7) and Ss. 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29 and 85(2)(a) —
Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation — Effective Remedy to Declog Courts in India
by Abhijnan Jha* and Urvashi Misra**
The Growing Need for Data Protection in International Arbitration
by Tariq Khan†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 76
Madras High Court | Courts will not interfere or set aside an arbitral award, merely because an alternative view is possible; Adopt a hands-off approach
Madras High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed against the order of the single judge, whereby, the judge allowed the
Court’s power under Section 9 A&C Act, 1996 wider than CPC; Technicalities of CPC cannot prevent it from securing the ends of justice: SC
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., contemplated the scope of Section 9 of Arbitration
2022 SCC Vol. 8 Part 1
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 8, 11, 7, 2(1)(h), 16 and 45 — Non-signatory or non-party to arbitration
Arbitration clause, even without the words “final and binding”, valid if the intention of the parties, to abide by arbitrator’s decision, is clear: Supreme Court
When Section 7 or any other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not stipulate any particular form or requirements, it would not be appropriate for a court to gratuitously add impediments and desist from upholding the validity of an arbitration agreement.
Supreme Court holds ‘Arbitrators cannot unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their own fees’; Justice Sanjiv Khanna partially dissents
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr DY Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has held that arbitrators do not have