15 Crucial Judgments of 2023 on Arbitration
In Ambey Mining Pvt Ltd v NTPC Ltd [2023] GCtR 2247 (Delhi) it was held that Section 62 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act also states that it is only where the parties agree to the conciliation process that they shall be so referred to the said process.
In Delhi Paper Products Co. Pvt Ltd v Union of India [2023] GCtR 101 (Delhi), it was found that the arbitral award was based on material, which is extraneous to the controversy.
In Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure v Sukumar Chand Jain [2023] GCtR 2248 (Delhi) it was held that neither the Commercial Court, considering the application for setting aside an award under Section 34 of the A&C Act, nor the appellate court, considering an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act, is required to re-evaluate the evidence and re-adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
It was held in CSIR v M/s Virtual - Wire Technologies Pvt Ltd [2023] GCtR 2256 (Delhi) that "the object of the alternative dispute resolution process of arbitration is to have expeditious and effective disposal of the disputes through a private forum of the parties’ choice."
In Pradeep Vinod Construction Co v Union of India [2023] GCtR 2349 (Delhi) it was held that the objective of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is to provide for neutrality of arbitrators and objectivity of the arbitral tribunal.
In Suryapushpa Distributors v RLDA [2023] GCtR 2250 (Delhi) it has been held that "when a party is seeking relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it is implicit that there is a final and binding arbitration agreement in existence. When an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is filed before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, there has to be “manifest intention” on the part of the applicant to take recourse to the arbitral proceedings."
In ITDC Ltd v Bajaj Electricals Ltd [2023] GCtR 105 (Delhi) it has been held that "Section 34(3) of the A&C Act provides for the period within which the objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act may be filed for setting aside the Award. In nutshell, it provides for a limitation period of three months in filing the Objections and a further period of 30 days in case the parties are able to show sufficient cause which prevented it from filing the petition within the prescribed period. In all, three months plus one month is the time provided for filing of the objections which is now settled to be the maximum period beyond which no further extension under any circumstances, can be granted."
In Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd v Saatvik Foods [2023] GCtR 2251 (Delhi) it has been noted that "if the parties have agreed that they would first endeavour to resolve the disputes amicably in a particular manner, it is necessary for them to first exhaust that procedure before exercising any right to refer the disputes to arbitration."
In UBTECH Pvt Ltd v Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd [2023] GCtR 2253 (Delhi) it has been concluded that "the objection raised on behalf of the respondent under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 cannot come to its rescueand further found that the dispute in question was arbitral in nature."
It has been held in Union of India v Alcon Builders and Engineers [2023] GCtR 2254 (Delhi) that "it is important to appreciate that the A&C Act, 1996 does not define an "award‟, except to say in section 2(1)(c) that "arbitral award‟ includes an interim award. But typically, an arbitral award includes decisions on multiple claims and counter-claims raised by the disputing parties; and thus the award commonly comprises a bouquet of decisions of the arbitrator on separate claims and counter-claims.
It was held in Gujarat JHM Hotels Ltd v Rajasthali Resorts and Studios Ltd [2023] GCtR 2255 (Delhi) that "position in law can be safely recognised to be the seat court being the focal point for all challenges that may arise before, during or after the conclusion of arbitral proceedings. The seat court would always be the central pivot in terms of the provisions that may be contained in the arbitration agreement. It would thus clearly be a court which would fall within the ambit and scope of Section 42 of the A&C Act, 1996".
It was held in Inland Waterways Authority of India v Reach Dredging Ltd [2023] GCtR 153 (Delhi) that "the venue of arbitration is to be merely recognised as a convenient location or place which may be decided upon by parties for the purposes of conduct of arbitral proceedings" but "a seat of arbitration is to be identified from a juridical perspective and thus constituting the situs of the arbitration itself."
In Bridge Building Construction Co. Pvt Ltd v BHEL [2023] GCtR 2252 (Delhi) it was noted "that a person who is ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator would also be ineligible to appoint the arbitrator and the element of ineligibility would also extend to the person so appointed."
It was held in Barasat Krishnagar Expressways Ltd v NHAI [2023] GCtR 2257 (Delhi) it was held that "an inordinate delay in passing of an Award is detrimental to the very object of arbitration", however "effect of delay in making an Award is to be considered by the Court once the Award is pronounced by the Arbitral Tribunal and is challenged by either of the parties in accordance with law."
In Chabbras Associates v HSCC India Ltd [2023] GCtR 2258 (Delhi) it was reiterated that "procedure prescribed in the Agreement before invocation of the Arbitration Agreement necessarily needs to be followed, as Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be invoked only where the parties have failed to act under the prescribed procedure".
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.