Arbitration

Interim direction by arbitrator to lessee to deposit rental amount for period of : (a) complete closure, and (b) partial closure of the premises run as a restaurant and bar, during COVID-19 Lockdown, by applying force majeure principle contained in agreement. Arbitrator however failed to consider the import and effect of force majeure principle and […]

Arbitration clause contained in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was invoked by the petitioner but was opposed on the premise that the MOU ceased to exist on and from the date of the shareholder’s agreement(SHA) which superseded the MOU and novated the same. Held, is thus non-determinable by court at the stage of reference when

Award on issues/matters beyond the scope of the arbitration clause which was invoked, as the issues/matters in question pertained to another distinct agreement, arbitration clause in which latter agreement was not invoked, is not valid. Award on lease rental and lease duration i.e pertaining to lease agreement is not permissible, when arbitration has been invoked

Respondent contended that disputes sought to be raised were under the non-disclosure agreement and, therefore not arbitrable, inasmuch as, there was no arbitration agreement in that agreement. Held, ordinarily falls within the domain of the arbitration. Zostel Hospitality Private Limited v. Oravel Stays Private Limited, (2021) 9 SCC 765

When arbitrator fails to decide matter in accordance with terms of contract governing parties, it will attract “patent illegality ground” as it amounts to gross contravention of S. 28(3). [State of Chhattisgarh v. SAL Udyog (P) Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 275]

Scope of interference with, by Court — Law summarized: The fact situation that the learned sole arbitrator relied on the facts of the case, the conduct of the parties and some other material terms and conditions of the contract and was lucid in his reasoning. Held, the consistent view is taken in several judicial pronouncements

Award passed by an arbitrator appointed under 1996 Act by Court with consent of parties despite the existence of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is binding, when the same attains finality i.e. is not appealed against at the appropriate stage. Subsequent invocation of arbitration under the 1983 Act regarding identical claims i.e. after an award

Court had power to condone eight days’ delay, which was less than thirty days, in terms of proviso to sub-section (3) to S. 34 of the 1996 Act. In this case, in application seeking condonation of delay, it was inter alia stated that after receiving a copy of award appellant had engaged an empanelled advocate

Power of Court under S. 34 to “set aside” award, held, does not include power to modify such an award. Given limited scope of judicial interference with award under S. 34 on extremely limited grounds not dealing with merits of an award, “limited remedy” under S. 34, held, is coterminous with “limited right”, namely, either