Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement
Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section
arbitration and conciliation act
2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3
Advocates Act, 1961 — S. 16 — Procedure for designation of Senior Advocates: Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court
Rajasthan High Court | No award can be remitted to the arbitrator where there are no findings in the contentious issues of the award
Rajasthan High Court: Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. found that the writ petition by the petitioner lacks merit and dismissed it
Kar HC deals whether an international commercial arbitral award rendered outside India between the parties who have no connection to India can be enforced in India
Karnataka High Court: A Division bench of Ritu Raj Awasthi, CJ., and Suraj Govindaraj, J. issued notice to the respondent and listed
Whether an award passed under S. 34(4) of the A&C Act is a fresh award for the purpose of S. 34 of the Act? Del HC answers
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., allowed an amendment application seeking amendment of a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Explained| Which law to prevail if provisions of Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 are in conflict with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ was deciding an issue relating to
Arbitral Award and Patent Illegality: Del HC’s decision focusing on methodology adopted by Arbitral Tribunal for calculating arbitral award on finding error in Surveyor’s report
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh, JJ., while addressing a matter with regard to the arbitral
Court’s interference in regard to arbitral awards: Limited or Not? Del HC explains with the view taken by SC decision
Delhi High Court: On finding no ground for interference in the arbitral award, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., upheld the decision of Single
Explained| Can arbitrator grant pendente lite interest if contract expressly bars payment of interest?
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer* and Krishna Murari, JJ has held that if the contract contains a specific clause which
Chairman of party who entered into arbitration, can he be categorised as eligible under Arbitration and Conciliation Act? SC highlights impartiality of arbitrators as a key element while pronouncing this ruling
Supreme Court: Expressing on the aspect of independence and impartiality of the arbitrators, Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.,
Taking it out on the Arbitrator: The Rationale of Arbitral Immunity
by Tariq Khan†
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 57
Apex Court v. the unruly horse: Journey from Renusagar to Ssangyong Engineering
by Hiroo Advani† and Manav Nagpal††
Acts in Contravention of Orders of Injunction —The Consequences
by Karl K. Shroff*
Del HC | Can International Arbitration Award be assailed on ground of patent illegality? Is it permissible for arbitrator to award compound interest? HC answers
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., held that the scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration
“Complex” questions involving novation of contract can’t be decided by Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Supreme Court
“Detailed arguments on whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.”
Short delay in filing appeals under section 37 of the Arbitration Act can be condoned in exceptional cases. Here’s why Supreme Court overruled N.V. International verdict
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that given the object of speedy
3 years’ limitation period ‘unduly long’; Necessary for Parliament to fill the vacuum by prescribing a specific period of limitation under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 1996: SC
3 years is an unduly long period for filing an application under Section 11, since it would defeat the very object of the Act, which provides for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes within a time bound period.
SC calls for amendment to Sections 11(7) & 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to bring Sections 8 & 11 at par on appealability. Read how Vidya Drolia judgment has led to an anomaly
Supreme Court: In the light of the “prima facie” test laid down last year in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2