Tag: Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Mere Use of Word “Arbitration” Doesn’t Bind Parties: Key Business Contract Lesson from Supreme Court
20Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Mere Use of Word “Arbitration” Doesn’t Bind Parties: Key Business Contract Lesson from Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that Clause 8.28 did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The clause lacked essential attributes, such as finality and a binding decision by a neutral tribunal, as it ultimately permitted parties to seek remedies in civil courts if unresolved. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Alchemist Hospitals Ltd., entered into a Software Implementation Agreement with the respondent, M/s ICT Health Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd., on 1st November 2018 for upgrading its hospital-information software. Following implementation, the appellant alleged persistent technical failures and operational issues with the respondent's "HINAI Web Software," leading to the system being rolled back i...
Read More
Arbitrator’s Inaction for 4 Years Leads to Award Being Quashed: Supreme Court Ruling
16Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Arbitrator’s Inaction for 4 Years Leads to Award Being Quashed: Supreme Court Ruling

In appeals arising from a delayed and unworkable arbitral award, the Supreme Court held that inordinate and unexplained delay in pronouncement can vitiate an award if it explicitly and adversely impacts its findings, rendering it contrary to public policy or patently illegal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Court further clarified that such an unworkable award, which fails to resolve disputes and irreversibly alters parties' positions, is liable to be set aside, and in exceptional circumstances, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated 17.12.2004 between respondent landowners and a developer (later amalgamated into the ...
Read More
How a Defective Arbitration Clause & the Pandemic Shaped a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Limitation
1Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

How a Defective Arbitration Clause & the Pandemic Shaped a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Limitation

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause is not rendered invalid merely because the named arbitrator becomes statutorily ineligible; courts retain authority under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint a neutral arbitrator. Additionally, the limitation period for filing the application was extended by excluding the COVID-19 period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Offshore Infrastructures Limited, was awarded a contract by the respondent, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (formerly Bharat Oman Refineries Limited), for composite works at the Bina Refinery. The work, accepted on 31 December 2016, was to be completed by 30 May 2017 but was ultimately finished on 31 January 2018. The appellant raised its final bill on 20 Ma...
Read More
No Waiver Without Clear Intent: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Violating ‘No Oral Modification’ Clause
27Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Waiver Without Clear Intent: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Violating ‘No Oral Modification’ Clause

This Supreme Court judgment underscores the narrow scope of judicial intervention under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It affirms that an arbitral award can be set aside if it violates the fundamental policy of Indian law, principles of natural justice, or the terms of the contract, or if it exhibits patent illegality or perversity that shocks the conscience of the court. The Tribunal must adjudicate within the contractual framework and cannot rewrite the agreement. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, an EPC contractor, and GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd., the project owner, concerning the construction of thermal power plants in Odisha. Following delays and disagreements, SEPCO demobilized from the site ...
Read More
Clarity on Post-Award Interest: Supreme Court Explains When Hyder Consulting Judgment Applies
15Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Clarity on Post-Award Interest: Supreme Court Explains When Hyder Consulting Judgment Applies

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that an arbitral award granting a composite interest rate from the cause of action until the date of repayment, based on a contract between the parties, excludes the default application of separate post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Party autonomy governs, and a decree-holder cannot claim compound interest at the execution stage if it was not stipulated in the contract or awarded by the tribunal, as this would amount to impermissibly modifying the award. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 09.04.2014 between HLV Limited and PBSAMP Projects Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of land in Hyderabad. PBSAMP paid an advance of Rs. 15.5 crores to HLV. After...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary issue of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be permanently foreclosed by an arbitrator based on a demurrer. The Court clarified that such a decision on demurrer is not a final adjudication on merits and does not preclude a subsequent examination based on evidence, as it would violate the fundamental mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) dated 23.07.2008 between Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (Petitioner) and Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The Petitioner invested Rs. 25 Crore, with a clause stipulating a refund if certain "Conditions Precedent" were not fulfilled within 90 days. The Respondent...
Read More
No Interest on Delayed Payment Clause: Supreme Court Explains Its Limits
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Interest on Delayed Payment Clause: Supreme Court Explains Its Limits

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a contractual clause merely barring interest on delayed or disputed payments does not, by itself, expressly or by necessary implication prohibit an arbitral tribunal from awarding pendente lite interest. The power to award such interest under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is only denuded if the agreement contains a clear and comprehensive bar. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated 21.11.2004, which directed the appellant, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC), to pay a total sum of USD 6,56,272.34 to the respondent, M/s G & T Beckfield Drilling Services Pvt. Ltd., for outstanding invoices and other claims. The arbitral tribunal rejected ONGC's preliminary objection to the ma...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling : Businesses Take Note ,Email Exchanges Can Create a Binding Arbitration Agreement
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling : Businesses Take Note ,Email Exchanges Can Create a Binding Arbitration Agreement

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that a valid arbitration agreement can be constituted through conduct and correspondence, without a signed contract. The Supreme Court held that if parties have demonstrably acted upon the terms of an unsigned agreement, they are bound by its arbitration clause, and a referral court need only conduct a prima facie review of the agreement's existence. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a proposed contract for the sale of 6,000 metric tons of zinc metal between Glencore International AG (Appellant) and Shree Ganesh Metals (Respondent No.1). The terms were negotiated via email, and Glencore sent a formal contract (No. 061-16-12115-S) incorporating an arbitration clause, which it signed. The Respondent, however, never signed this document. Despite...
Read More
Supreme Court Strikes Down Unilateral Arbitration Clauses, Upholds Neutral Appointments
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Unilateral Arbitration Clauses, Upholds Neutral Appointments

This Supreme Court judgment affirms that a unilateral arbitration clause granting one party the sole power to appoint an arbitrator is invalid. Following the Constitution Bench in CORE, the Court held that an ineligible person (such as a Managing Director) cannot nominate a sole arbitrator, as it raises justifiable doubts regarding impartiality under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., filed petitions before the Delhi High Court under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to terminate the mandate of a sole arbitrator. This arbitrator had been unilaterally appointed by the Managing Director of the respondent, Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to Clause 9.03...
Read More
Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...
Read More