201711.20
0
0

Supreme Court on Arbitration, November 2017

Supreme Court On Arbitration & Conciliation Act

 Supreme Court of India on Arbitration
 
  1. TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engg. Project Ltd. 2017 8 SCC 377
 
Held - Once the Arbitrator has become ineligible by operation of law, he cannot nominate another as an arbitrator. The Arbitrator becomes ineligible as per prescription contained in Section 12(5) of the Act.
 
  1. Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. 2017 7 SCC 678
 
Held – The moment the seat is designated, it is akin to an Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause.
 
  1. Hema Khattar v. Shiv Khera 2017 7 SCC 716
 
Held – Therefore, it is clear that in an agreement between the parties before the Civil Court, if there is a clause for arbitration, it is mandatory for the civil court to refer the dispute to an arbitrator.
 
  1. Imax Corp. v. E-City Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. 2017 5 SCC 331
 
Held – The place of arbitration determines the law that will apply to the arbitration and related matters like challenges to the award, etc. The significant determinant in each case is the agreement of the parties as to the place of arbitration and where in fact the arbitration took place. If in pursuance of the arbitration agreement, the arbitration took place outside India, there is a clear exclusion of the Part I of the Arbitration Act.
 
  1. Voestalpine Schienen GmBh v. Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd. 2017 4 SCC 665
 
Held – Even when the Arbitrators have to be chosen from the panel decided by one of the parties, it is imperative to have a much broad-based panel so that there is no misapprehension that the principle of impartiality and independence would be discarded at any stage of the proceedings, especially at the stage of constitution of the Arbitration Tribunal.
 
  1. Sharma and Associates Contractors P. Ltd. v. Progressive Construction Ltd. 2017 5 SCC 743
 
Held – An arbitrator is a creature of contract between the parties and if he ignores the specific term of the contract, it would be a question of jurisdiction error which can be corrected by the Court. A deliberate departure or conscious disregard of the contract not only manifests the disregard of his authority or misconduct on his part, but it may tantamount to legal mala fides as well. It is further settled in the law that the Arbitrator is not a conciliator and cannot ignore the law or misapply it in order to do what he thinks just and reasonable.
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Current day month ye@r *