Interim orders cannot be granted in Arbitration proceedings where claim cannot be specifically enforced

May
11
2017


Bombay High Court in the matter of B E Billimoira and Company Vs Mahindra Bebanco Developers Limited; Commercial Arbitration Petition (Ldg) No.




Parties by an Agreement can confer jurisdiction upon a Court in Arbitration matters

May
2
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Indus Mobile Vs. Datawind Innovations; Civil appeal no. 5370-5371/2017 in a landmark judgment has modified the understanding of law with regard to jurisdiction of Court. Age old law that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court by an agreement between the parties is no longer applicable to arbitration proceedings.




Limitation Act applies to Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Mar
17
2017


Delhi High Court in the matter of Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Vs K J M C Global Market; FAO (OS) 263/2016 held It is now well settled that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to all proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including both in court and arbitration proceedings except to the extent expressly excluded by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996. 




Mandate of arbitrator shall be terminated where parties agree to terminate proceedings

Feb
11
2017


Delhi High Court in a matter titled as Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Deepak Cables (India) Limited; OMP (T)(COMM) 4/2017 decided on 25th January, 2017 held that under  14 (1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996  the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal may be terminated where the parties so agree and the Arbitrator shall terminate arbitral proceedings by or pursuant to an agreement between the parties. The Tribunal is only required to enquire whether, there was an agreement between the parties.




Meaning of Seat of Arbitration#indianlaws

Jun
21
2016


The term "subject matter of the arbitration" cannot be confused with "subject matter of the suit". The term "subject matter" in Section 2(1)(e) is confined to Part I. It has a reference and connection with the process of dispute resolution. Its purpose is to identify the courts having supervisory control over the arbitration proceedings. Hence, it refers to a court which would essentially be a court of the seat of the arbitration process.The provision in Section 2(1)(e)has to be construed keeping in view the provisions in Section 20 which give recognition to party autonomy. The legislature has intentionally given jurisdiction to two courts i.e. the court which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located and the courts where the arbitration takes place. This was necessary as on many occasions the agreement may provide for a seat of arbitration at a place which would be neutral to both the parties. Therefore, the courts where the arbitration takes place would be required to exercise supervisory control over the arbitral process.








© 2010-15