• Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (D) V Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel Civil Appeal No. 3313 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.15668 of 2012

    Reading Time: 3 minutes Judgment:  Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (D) v Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel   Citation:(2018) 15 SCC 178   Court: Supreme Court of India   Coram: R.K. Aggarwal, R. Banumathi, JJ.   Date: March 29, 2018   Overview: Issue:Whether the High Court was right in holding that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award was barred by limitation? Factual background: A business of chemicals, fertilizers and real estate was run by the Petitioner (Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel) and Respondent (Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel) who are brothers in Gujarat. In the course of their business, they set up a number of companies and…

  • Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    Precious Sapphires Limited v Amira Pure Foods Private Limited

    Reading Time: 3 minutes Judgment: Precious Sapphires Limited v Amira Pure Foods Private Limited   Citation: Ex. P. 330/2015 & E.A. No. 387/2018   Court: The High Court of Delhi   Coram: Navin Chawla, J.   Date: 28 November 2018   Overview: This case deals with the effect of an amendment in the procedural law of the High Court of Delhi on a petition for enforcement of a foreign award.   Issue: Whether this petition has to be transferred to the jurisdictional Subordinate Court or continue to be entertained by this Court following the promulgation of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015?   Factual Background: The present enforcement petition…

  • Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    Worlds Window Infrastructure & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v Central Warehousing Corporation

    Reading Time: 7 minutes Judgment:Worlds Window Infrastructure & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v Central Warehousing Corporation   Citation:253 (2018) DLT 122/ 2018 (5) ArbLR 51 (Delhi)   Court: The High Court of Delhi   Coram: Navin Chawla, J.   Date: 14 August 2018   Overview:The court considered two petitions challenging the mandate of the Arbitrator. The first was filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), requesting the court to appoint an Arbitrator. The second was filed under section 14 read section 12 of Act challenging the independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator. The court dismissed the petitions as it found no…

  • Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    Manish Anand & Ors. v FIITJEE Ltd.

    Reading Time: 3 minutes Judgment: Manish Anand and Ors. v FIITJEE Ltd.   Citation: 248 (2018) DLT 499   Court: The High Court of Delhi   Coram: Navin Chawla, J.   Date: 21 February 2018   Overview:The mandate of the Sole Arbitrator was challenged in this case under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on two grounds. First, the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator by the respondent. Second, that the Arbitrator had not given proper disclosure as required under Section 12(1) of the Act.   Issue: (1) Whether the unilateral appointment of the sole Arbitrator by a party is invalid? (2)…

  • Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    Goel Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

    Reading Time: 2 minutes Order: Goel Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India   Citation: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 120/2018 & I.A. No. 15421/2018   Court:The High Court of Delhi   Coram: Navin Chawla, J.   Date: 13 November 2018   Overview: A petition had been filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) challenging the mandate of the Arbitrator as he had not made the requisite disclosure under Schedule VI of the Act. The court disposed the petition with a direction to the Arbitrator give the disclosure within one week of communication of the order.  …

  • Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    National Highways Authority of India v Gammom Engineers Contractor Private Limited

    Reading Time: 4 minutes Judgment: National Highways Authority of India v Gammom Engineers Contractor Private Limited   Citation: O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 39/2018 & I.A. Nos. 6559 and 9228/2018   Court: The High Court of Delhi   Coram: Navin Chawla, J.   Date: 20 July 2017   Overview: A petition had been filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal as the Tribunal was charging a fee different from the agreement between the parties.  The court held that the Tribunal was bound by the fees fixed in the Agreement between the parties.  …

  • Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    National Highways Authority of India v BSC-RBM-PATI Joint Venture

    Reading Time: 4 minutes Judgment: National Highways Authority of India v BSC-RBM-PATI Joint Venture   Citation: O.M.P. No. 518/2016   Court: The High Court of Delhi   Coram: Deepa Sharma, J.   Date: 22 September 2019   Overview: A petition was filed against an interim award passed by an arbitrator whereby; a certain sum was payable along with interest at 12% per annum compounded monthly. It was alleged that the award interim award suffered from patently illegalityand hence, was against the public policyof India.   Issue: (1) Whether the Order of the Arbitrator amounts to granting interest upon interest? (2) Whether an Arbitrator can grant compound interest? (3) Whether grant…

  • Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    Union of India v. Vodafone Group Plc United Kingdom & Anr

    Reading Time: 2 minutes Citation: CS (OS) 383/2017 Coram: Justice Manmohan Date: 7thMay, 2018 Overview: With respect to arbitration proceedings, this case was with regards to anti-arbitration injunctions and whether they should be allowed. The Court held that in this instance two separate claims could not be made by the parties under two different Bilateral Investment Protection Agreements as this would be unjust and would lead to an abuse of legal rights by the entity. This was also held because the parties were identified to be a single entity by relaying on the group of companies doctrine. Facts: Vodafone Group PLC is the parent company of several subsidiaries of which…

  • Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc

    Reading Time: 2 minutes Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2018 Court: Supreme Court of India Coram: Dipak Misra Date: September 25, 2018 Overview: In this case, the Supreme Court of India was presented with the question of which law would be applicable to post-award arbitration proceedings when only the venue and not the seat had been agreed upon by the parties. The Court here, in order to determine the seat, interpreted the arbitration agreement as well as the references made to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Issue: When the arbitration agreement specifies the “venue” for holding the arbitration but does not specify the “seat”, then on…

  • Annual Arbitration Review 2018

    Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation

    Reading Time: 2 minutes Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2402 / 2019 Coram: R. F Nariman, Vineet Saran Date: February 28, 2019 Overview: This judgement looks at the arbitrability of disputes which are governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and in order to do this, analyses the precedents pertaining to this issue. Facts: The following case arose due to tenancy related issues and whether disputes which were governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act could be arbitrable. In this case, the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act as well as the review and recall applications made by the tenant were rejected by…

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)