Dispute Resolution - The Legal Chamber

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...

No Arbitration Without Clear Agreement: When Does a Dispute Clause Become Binding? Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Explained

14Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Arbitration Without Clear Agreement: When Does a Dispute Clause Become Binding? Supreme Court’s Latest Verdict Explained

The Supreme Court held that Clause 13 of the contract, which stated disputes "may be sought through arbitration," did not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The use of "may" indicated no mandatory intent to arbitrate, requiring further mutual consent. The Court emphasized that an arbitration agreement must reflect a clear, unequivocal commitment to resolve disputes through arbitration, excluding domestic courts. Mere enabling language without obligation is insufficient. The High Court’s dismissal of the arbitration application was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between BGM & M-RPL-JMCT (JV) (Appellant) and Eastern Coalfields Limited (Respondent) over a contract for transportation/handling of goods. T...

Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation

13Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation

The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to conciliation and arbitration proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. It held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings, allowing time-barred claims to be referred for settlement. However, the Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3), as Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, incorporates the Limitation Act into such arbitrations. The Court emphasized that the MSMED Act’s provisions override general laws, ensuring a balanced approach to dispute resolution while protecting suppliers' rights. The disclosure of unpaid amounts in financial statements under Section 22 may extend limitation periods, subject to case-specific scrutiny. Facts Of The...

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers

14Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers

This judgment primarily interprets Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding deemed closure. The Court examined if an application for closure was complete and if the State's communication constituted a valid refusal within the statutory 60-day period for deemed permission. It also considered the "appropriate Government's" role and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade) implications. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an application by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) seeking permission to close its undertaking, as required under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The company sought closure due to various reasons, including financial viability issues. The central dispute revolved around whether the State of Maharashtra, as the appropri...

SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions

11Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions

The Supreme Court, in Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., ruled that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory, requiring inter-se disputes between banks and financial institutions concerning secured assets to be resolved through arbitration. No explicit arbitration agreement is needed; the provision legally mandates it, thereby divesting DRT of jurisdiction in such matters. Facts Of The Case: In the case of Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the core dispute involved the priority of charge over secured assets (stocks of paddy and rice) belonging to a common borrower, M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., between two public sector banks: Bank of India (appellant) and Punjab National Bank (respondent). Both banks had extended credit facil...

Supreme Court’s Mandate: New Public Notice for Nagaland Village Recognition

10Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Mandate: New Public Notice for Nagaland Village Recognition

The Supreme Court, exercising judicial review over executive decisions, set aside the High Court's directive for village recognition in Nagaland. The Court emphasized adherence to customary laws and specific Office Memorandums requiring "No Objection Certificates" from ancestral villages. It remanded the matter for comprehensive consideration of objections, including those from the appellant, affirming that inter-district boundary disputes are irrelevant to village recognition. Facts Of The Case: This Supreme Court judgment stems from a dispute concerning the recognition of Kakiho Village in Nagaland. The core of the matter involved the application of existing government Office Memorandums (O.M.'s) dated March 22, 1996, and October 1, 2005, which outline criteria for village recognition...

Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement

25May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement

The Supreme Court ruled that arbitral tribunals have the power to award compound interest (interest on interest) under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It clarified that the "sum awarded" includes both principal and pre-award interest, and post-award interest can be calculated on this total amount. The judgment overruled earlier contrary interpretations, affirming arbitrators' discretion in interest calculations unless expressly barred by contract. The Court emphasized this aligns with the compensatory purpose of arbitration awards for delayed payments. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Interstate Construction (appellant) and National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (respondent) regarding construction work for Ramagundam Super Therma...

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

22May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be annulled solely for lack of jurisdiction if no plea was raised before the tribunal under Section 16(2). It harmonized conflicting precedents, holding that objections under Section 34 must show strong grounds, and upheld the finality of awards where jurisdictional challenges were untimely. The judgment clarifies that the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Act 1983, does not automatically override arbitration agreements unless jurisdictional objections are raised at the appropriate stage. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Gayatri Projects Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation regarding road construction works in Madhya Pradesh. The parties...

Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”

19May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”

The Supreme Court ruled that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMED) Act, 2006 overrides arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming its special law status. It held that the supplier’s location determines arbitration jurisdiction, disregarding contractual seat clauses. The judgment reinforces statutory protection for MSMEs, ensuring disputes proceed before designated Facilitation Councils as per Section 18(4). Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a construction contract between M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta (Appellant), an MSME-registered supplier, and ISRO (Respondent), following a 2017 tender for staff quarters in Delhi. The agreement included an arbitration clause designating Bengaluru as the seat. When conflicts emerged, the supplier app...

“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), ...