Tag: Commercial Arbitration

Commercial Contracts & Interest Rates: Supreme Court Reaffirms ‘Party Autonomy’ Over ‘Public Policy’
3Mar By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Commercial Contracts & Interest Rates: Supreme Court Reaffirms ‘Party Autonomy’ Over ‘Public Policy’

The Supreme Court held that under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, party autonomy prevails; where a commercial contract specifies an interest rate, the arbitral tribunal has no discretion to deviate. A stipulated interest rate of 36% with monthly rests in a bill discounting agreement between equal bargaining parties is not unconscionable or against public policy. The rule of contra proferentem does not apply to mutually negotiated commercial contracts. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a bill discounting facility extended by the respondent, Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited, to M/s BPL Display Device Ltd (BDDL) and the appellant, BPL Limited, through sanction letters dated 27.12.2002 and 11.06.2003. The facility allowed BDDL to ...
Read More
Arbitrator’s Power on Interest Rates: Supreme Court Explains Key Legal Limits
6Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Arbitrator’s Power on Interest Rates: Supreme Court Explains Key Legal Limits

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the limited scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held that an arbitrator's discretion to award a contractual interest rate of 24% is not per se usurious or against public policy. It reaffirmed that courts cannot reappreciate evidence and may only set aside an award on the narrow, specified grounds under Section 34 of the Act, which were not met in this case. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, M/s Sri Lakshmi Hotels Pvt. Limited and its Managing Director, availed two loans totaling ₹1.57 Crore from the respondent Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) in 2006. The loan agreements stipulated an interest rate of 24% per annum. After making partial repayments until April 200...
Read More
Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation Issues

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that the underlying claim for recovery of money was hopelessly barred by limitation, rendering the appointment of an arbitrator untenable in law. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute arising from a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner, residing in the UK, entered into a partnership with the respondent on 20.09.2014, succeeding an earlier partnership involving the petitioner’s sister. The petitioner alleged that he paid substantial sums amounting to Rs. 2.31 crores, relying on a clause entitling him to 75% of profits from a property purchased on 04.05.2016, but received nothing. The partnership wa...
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 Ruling: Courts Must Appoint Arbitrator Even If Serious Fraud is Alleged
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Courts Must Appoint Arbitrator Even If Serious Fraud is Alleged

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, a court's role is prima facie confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. All other contentious issues, including allegations of serious fraud and non-arbitrability, are jurisdictional matters that must be decided by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, entered into agreements with various rice millers for the custom milling of paddy procured from farmers. The agreements contained an arbitration clause. When the millers allegedly failed to deliver the stipulated quantity of rice, the Corporation initiated recovery proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. The millers challe...
Read More
“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act
17May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act

The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, courts must limit their examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot decide arbitrability or exclude claims as "excepted matters" at the appointment stage. Citing the 7-judge bench in In Re: Interplay and 3-judge bench in SBI General Insurance, it held that arbitral tribunals—not courts—must determine whether claims fall under non-arbitrable categories. The judgment clarifies that courts cannot bifurcate claims into arbitrable/non-arbitrable during arbitrator appointments, ensuring minimal judicial interference at the referral stage. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a contractual agreement between Office for Alternative Architecture (Appellant) and IRCON Infrastructure (Respondent), ...
Read More