S.

NO CASE TITLE ISSUES FACTS FINDING

.
NO. INVOLVED
Civil Union of The Indian This case was filed in the SC challenging the The question regarding the "seat" and
1. Appeal India (UOI) Courts have order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Single "venue" for holding arbitration
No. 4628 Vs. Hardy no jurisdiction
Judge in OMP No.693 of 2013 and order proceedings by the arbitrators arising
of 2018 Exploration to entertain
(Arising and the dated 20.01.2016 in Review Petition No.400 under the Arbitration
out of SLP Production Appellant's of 2015 in OMP No.693 of 2013. As per Agreement/International Commercial
(C) No. (India) Inc application Section 34 of the act it was not allowed by Arbitration Agreement is primarily
31356 of filed Under Indian courts to interfere in the arbitral required to be decided keeping in view
2016) Section 34 of tribunal held outside India. The appellant the terms of the arbitration agreement
Decided the Act to
(Union of India) felt aggrieved by the order itself, but having regard to the law laid
On: 01.05. challenge the
2018 legality and of the Single Judge, filed appeal under down by this Court in several
correctness of Section 37(2) of the Act before the Division decisions by the Benches of variable
an award in Bench of the High Court at Delhi but again it strength as detailed above, and further
question. was maintainable as per the section 34 of the taking into consideration the
act. After that appellant again filed the appeal aforementioned submissions urged by
in the SC by special leave. In their the learned Counsel for the parties and
submissions, both the learned senior counsel also keeping in view the issues
argued on almost every issue, which has involved in the appeal, which
arisen in the appeal directly, indirectly and frequently arise in International
even remotely. But as the learned counsel Commercial Arbitration matters, we
gave the recommendations of the English are of the considered view that this is a
court cases they arise a question that when fit case to exercise the power Under
the arbitration agreement specify the “venue” Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court
for holding the arbitration sittings by the Rules, 2013 and refer this case
arbitrators but does not specify the “seat”, (appeal) to be dealt with by the larger
then on what basis and by which principle, Bench of the Court for its hearing
the parties have to decide the place of “seat”
which has a material bearing for determining
the applicability of laws of a particular
country for deciding the post award
Civil arbitration proceedings
Appeal
Nos.
Cheran On the issue of a written arbitration
10025- Whether an
10026 of Properties arbitration agreement, the Court held that the
2. 2017 Limited Vs. award is In this matter , a 3 Judge Bench of the mandate to have a written agreement
Kasturi and is to exclude the jurisdiction of
binding on a Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice
Sons non signatory Dipak Misra passed a judgment on 24th April national courts. Where parties have
Limited and to the
Ors 2018 on the question of binding of arbitral agreed to resolve their disputes by
arbitration
award on a non-signatory to the Arbitration arbitration, they seek to substitute a
agreement?
Agreement. In the Civil Appeal filed by the private forum for dispute resolution in
appellants, an arbitration agreement was place of the adjudicatory institutions
entered into between KC Palanisamy (KCP), constituted by the state. Hence, the
KSL and SPIL and a company by the name of Court remarked that the evolving body
Hindcorp Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (Hindcorp). Later of academic literature as well as
on disputes arose between the parties adjudicatory trends indicate that in
resulting in the commencement of arbitral certain situations, an arbitration
proceedings. Under the terms of the award, a agreement between two or more
direction was issued under which KCP and parties may operate to bind other
SPIL were required to return documents of parties as well. Eventually, the Apex
title and share certificates contemporaneously Court dismissed the appeals stating
with KSL paying an amount of Rs. that the appellant was not a party to
3,58,11,000 together with interest at 12% p.a. the arbitral proceedings will not
on a sum of Rs 2.55 crores. KCP challenged conclude the question as to whether
the award of the arbitral tribunal under the award can be enforced against it
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation on the ground that it claims under a
Act, 1996 on the ground that the arbitral party.
award could not be executed against the
appellant who is admittedly not a signatory to
 the agreement. Submissions were made on
the applicability of Section 7, 9, 11, 34 and
35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for
the purpose of understanding the position of a
non-signatories’ liability to an Arbitration
Award.
3. It is pertinent to note here that Clause
Civil Union of Whether Respondent started work of construction and 19 does not start with any word
Appeal India (UOI) award of finally completed work within stipulated
Nos. 3994- Vs. Arbitrator
"Subject to". Moreover, there is no
extended time period of completion. other provision in the contract which
3995 of Varindera and findings
Respondent submitted final bill along with specifically allow the reimbursement
2018 Constructio of High Court
(Arising ns Ltd. and were contrary some additional claims. Claim of additional of wages in case of escalation. In the
out of Ors to express amount was rejected by Appellant. absence of these things, SC are of the
Special provision of Respondent invoked arbitration clause and considered view that it is not
Leave Clause 19, dispute was referred to Arbitrator as provided
Petition according to
permissible in law that Clause 19
under contract. Learned Arbitrator made the ought to be interpreted in light of
Nos. 9743- which no
Award dated 24.08.2011. It is pertinent to Clause 25. Also in the impugned
9744 of escalation was
2013) permissible to note here that the Respondent referred total judgment, the High Court without
Decided contractor for 12 claims in the arbitration proceeding. Out having regard to the title and first part
On: 19.04. increase in of these claims, two were rejected by learned of Clause 25, interpreted Clause 19,
2018 wages of Arbitrator and one claim is partly withdrawn along with the second part of Clause
labour due to by the Respondent and the remaining claims
statutory hike, 25, which is against the cannons of
were decided in favour of the Respondent. law. Hence, the Respondent-
which
contractor Feeling aggrieved, Appellant filed petition Contractor in the present case is not
might have to which was dismissed by High Court as entitled to claim any escalation in
incur during Clause 19 and 25 have to be read minimum wages as it would be against
execution of harmoniously. Whereas Clause 19 prohibits the condition of Clause 19 read with
work on any escalation to be paid with respect to the Clause 6.3. In view of the above
account. wages of labour, Clause 25 requires detailed discussion, SC are of the
(section 34) minimum wage increase to be reimbursed to considered view that the High Court
the contractor upon there being an impact erred in law. Accordingly, SC are
thereon by a law declared by the State inclined to allow these appeals and set
Government. The minimum wages, as we all aside the decision of the courts below
know, are statutorily notified under the as also the Award. Parties to bear their
Minimum Wages Act, 1948. We note that the own cost.
learned arbitrator has granted the benefits
under the said head, but not fully
recompensing the contractor the 37.46%
increase in minimum wages. The reasoning
given by the learned arbitrator is that the
contractor could have envisaged that there
would be some increase in wages during the
period of contract. The interpretation by the
learned arbitrator, if at all is faulty, is to the
detriment of the contractor, for the reason
Clause 25, which commences with the
expression is required to be read as an
exception to Clause 19 and, if so read, the
entire increase in minimum wages which was
result of a government notification was
required to be recompensed. Hence,
Appellant filed present appeal
SC said that It is worth mentioning
Determinati The IBI Consultancy India Private Limited
Arbitration IBI that the position after the insertion of
Case (C) on thereof - (Petitioner) is the Indian subsidiary of the IBI
Consultancy Sub-section 6(A) of Section 11 of the
4. Nos. 53, India
Section 11 of Group based in Canada. They entered into a
Arbitration
Act dated 23.10.2015 has been
63, 54 and Private contract with the Respondents for
changed. The extent of examination is
57 of 2016 Limited Vs. and installation, erection and commissioning of
(Under Conciliation now confined only to the existence of
DSC the Toll Collection and Traffic Control
Section Limited
Act, 1996 the Arbitration Agreement. Now, it is
(Act) - Present Equipments. During completion of the
11(5), pertinent to set out Article-1 as well as
11(6) (a) petition filed projects, the Respondent defaulted in
 read with against order releasing the agreed payment to the Clause 3.14 of the Contract
Sections wherein High Petitioner, which led to invocation of Agreement dated 30.08.2010, which is
11(9) & Court held
Arbitration Clause. The Petitioner evident that the letter dated
that one party
to petition to approached the High Court for appointment 14.06.2010, is a part of the Contract
petition of arbitrator. The High Court directed the and it shall be read and construed as
incorporated Petitioner that since one party to the petition an integral part of the Contract.
outside India, was incorporated outside India such an entity Therefore, the contention of the
appointment would be an 'international commercial Respondent-Company that there does
of arbitrator
arbitration' therefore an application would not exist any arbitration agreement
be filed in
Apex Court - have to be filed before the Supreme Court. between the parties is not sustainable
Whether Hence, present petition was filed. in the eyes of law. It is a cardinal
appointment principle of the Arbitration and
of arbitrator Conciliation Act that the parties are
be allowed in free to decide the number of
present case
arbitrators, provided, it is an odd
number, as well as the procedure for
appointing them. However, if the
parties are not able to agree on the said
procedure, or constitute the Arbitral
Tribunal to their mutual satisfaction,
either of the party has an option to
route to an appropriate remedy.
Accordingly, Justice Amitava Roy, a
former Judge of this Court, is
appointed as the sole Arbitrator to
adjudicate the disputes between the
parties on such fees he may fix.either
of the party has an option to route to
an appropriate remedy. Accordingly,
Justice Amitava Roy, a former Judge
of this Court, is appointed as the sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties on such fees he
The insured was covered under a fire may fix
Oriental industrial all-risk policy for its factory in The disputation squarely comes within
Civil The
Insurance
Appeal
Company importance of Odisha. In October 2013, Cyclone Phailin Part II of Clause 13. The said Part of
5. No. 2268 reviewing an caused damage. On January 21 2017, and the Clause clearly spells out that the
Limited Vs.
of 2018 insurer's before a decision had been taken on the parties have agreed and understood
Respondent
(Arising declinature claim, the insured served an arbitration
: that no differences and disputes shall
out of letter to
S.L.P. (C)
Narbheram notice. The Oriental Insurance Company be referable to arbitration if the
Power and properly
No. 33621 assess whether
Limited (OIC) replied to the arbitration company has disputed or not accepted
Steel Pvt. notice by denying liability and repudiating
of 2017) liability had the liability. The communication
Ltd.
Decided been denied or the claim on various specified grounds. ascribes reasons for not accepting the
On: accepted. Considering the denial of liability, the OIC claim at all. It is nothing else but
02.05.18 also denied the applicability of the policy's denial of liability by the insurer in
arbitration clause and rejected the arbitration Toto. It is not a disputation pertaining
notice under the arbitration clause (Clause to quantum… The insurance-company
13) The insured filed an application before has, on facts, repudiated the claim by
the Calcutta High Court under Section 11 of denying to accept the liability on the
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, basis of the aforesaid reasons. No
requesting the court to appoint an arbitrator. inference can be drawn that there is
The Calcutta High Court felt that the policy's some kind of dispute with regard to
arbitration clause applied even though quantification. It is a denial to
liability had been denied by the OIC. The indemnify the loss as claimed by the
OIC appealed to the Supreme Court. respondent. Such a situation,
according to us, falls on all fours
within the concept of denial of
disputes and non-acceptance of
liability… The parties are bound by
 the terms and conditions agreed under
the policy and the arbitration clause
contained in it. The language used in
the second part is absolutely
categorical and unequivocal inasmuch
as it stipulates that it is clearly agreed
and understood that no difference or
disputes shall be preferable to
arbitration if the company has
disputed or not accepted the liability.
Therefore, the only remedy which the
respondent can take recourse to is to
institute a civil suit for mitigation of
the grievances. If a civil suit is filed
within two months hence, the benefit
of Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
1963 will endure to its benefit.
Notice was sent by Respondent invoking
Civil Whether arbitration under franchise agreement. Sole
Appeal Section 36, According to the Court, Section 26
Board of Arbitrator was appointed, who delivered two comprises of two parts viz. (a) the first
Nos. 2879- which was
6. Control for arbitral awards against Appellant and in
2892 of substituted by part refers to the Amendment Act not
Cricket in favour of Respondents. Appellants filed
2018 Amendment applying to arbitral proceedings which
India Vs. application under Section 34 of Act
(Arising Act, would have commenced in accordance with
Kochi
out of apply in its challenging previously mentioned arbitral Section 21 prior to the Amendment
Cricket Pvt.
SLPs (C) amended form awards. Respondents filed two execution
Ltd. and or in its Act coming into force; and (b) the
applications for payment of amounts awarded latter part refers to court proceedings
Ors. original form
under two awards, pending enforcement of “in relation to” arbitration proceedings
to appeals in
question such awards. These were resisted by two that have commenced after the
Chamber Summons filed by Appellants Amendment Act coming into force.
praying for dismissal of aforesaid execution Accordingly, the scheme of Section 26
applications stating that old Section 36 would of the Amendment Act is prospective
be applicable, and there would be automatic in nature and will apply to arbitration
stay of awards until Section 34 proceedings proceedings that are commenced on or
had been decided. Single Judge by impugned after the Amendment Act and court
judgment dismissed aforesaid Chamber proceedings which commence on or
Summons and found that amended Section 36 after the Amendment Act, irrespective
would be applicable in facts of present case. of whether they relate to arbitration
Hence, present appeal was filed by Appellant. proceedings initiated before or after
the Arbitration Act. Section 36, prior
to its amendment, provided that an
arbitral award will be enforceable as a
decree only after the time for filing a
petition under Section 34 had expired
or after Section 34 petition had been
dismissed. This interpretation,
effectively, meant that there was an
automatic stay on executing an award
if a petition had been filed under
Section 34 of the Act. The Court,
applying the principle under Section
26 above, concluded that in cases
where Section 34 petition has been
filed after the commencement of the
Amendment Act, an application for
stay has to be made under Section 36.
The next logical question arose on the
fate of Section 34 petitions, which
have been filed before the
 commencement of the Amendment
Act, which were governed by
unamended Section 36. For the same,
the court sought to interpret and
distinguish ‘enforcement’ from
‘execution’. The Court held that
execution of a decree pertains to
procedure and there is no substantive
vested right in the judgment debtor to
resist execution and the amended
Section 36 would apply even to
pending Section 34 applications as on
the date of commencement of the
Amendment Act.

The Respondent issued a purchase order to

Civil Whether the Appellant. To secure the performance
Appeal Managing
(i) The Managing Director, by virtue
TRF Ltd. under the purchase order, the Appellant had of the amended provision that had
Nos. 5306- Director, after
7. vs. Energo submitted an advance bank guarantee and a introduced Sub-section (5) to Section
09 of 2017 becoming
Engineering performance bank guarantee. As the
(Arising ineligible by 12, had enumerated the
Projects controversy arose with regard to encashment
out of operation of disqualification in the Seventh
Ltd.
SLPs) law, was he of bank guarantee, the Appellant approached Schedule. The agreement had been
still eligible to the High Court Under Section 9 of the Act
nominate
entered into before the amendment
seeking an order of restraint for encashment came into force. The procedure for
Arbitrator.
of the advance bank guarantee and the appointment was, thus, agreed upon.
(Explanation
to Section performance bank guarantee. High Court The amending provision did not take
12(5) of nominated an arbitrator, a former Judge of away the right of a party to nominate a
amended Act) present Court, as the sole Arbitrator. sole Arbitrator; otherwise, the
Appellant preferred an application under legislature could have amended other
Section 11(5) read with Section 11(6) of the provisions. (ii) By virtue of Section
Act for appointment of an Arbitrator under 12(5) of the Act, if any person who
Section 11(2) of the Act. The designated falls under any of the categories
Judge directed that besides the stipulation in specified in the Seventh Schedule
the purchase order governing the parties, the shall be ineligible to be appointed as
Court was inclined to appoint the former the Arbitrator. (iii) Once the Arbitrator
Judge as the sole Arbitrator to decide the had become ineligible by operation of
disputes between the parties. law, he could not nominate another as
an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator becomes
ineligible as per prescription contained
in Section 12(5) of the Act. It was
inconceivable in law that person who
was statutorily ineligible could
nominate a person. Once the identity
of the Managing Director as the sole
Arbitrator was lost, the power to
nominate someone else as an
Arbitrator was obliterated. Therefore,
the view expressed by the High Court
was not sustainable. (iv) The
Designated Judge in a cryptic manner
had ruled after noting that the
Petitioner therein had no reservation
for nomination of the nominated
Arbitrator and further taking note of
the fact that there had been a
disclosure, that he had exercised the
power Under Section 11(6) of the Act.
 Order appointing the Arbitrator was
set aside. Therefore, the matter to the
High Court for fresh consideration of
the prayer relating to appointment of
an Arbitrator.

The Respondent (DMRC) awarded the

contract to the Petitioner for supply of rails.
Arbitration Certain disputes arose between the parties
8. Petition The Court held that the appointment of
Voestalpin e with regard to the said contract inasmuch as
(Civil) No. retired government employee/ retired
50 of 2016
Schienen the Petitioner felt that Respondent wrongfully
GmbH vs. employee of PSU in absence of
withheld a sum towards invoices raised for
Decided Delhi connection between the individual and
supply of last lot of 3000 MT of rails and also
On: MetroRail the respondent would not attribute
illegally encashed performance bank
10.02.201 Corporatio biasness on the part of such
7 n Ltd. guarantees amounting to EURO 7,83,200/-.
individuals who are appointed as
Respondent also imposed liquidated damages
arbitrators, further in absence of such
amounting to EURO 4,00,129.397/- and
connection cannot be held to be
invoked price variation Clause to claim a
devoid of independence and
deposit of EURO 4,87,830/-. Not satisfied
impartiality hence the panel appointed
with the performance of the Petitioner, the
by the respondent cannot be said to be
Respondent suspended the business dealings
in violation with section 12(1) and
with the Petitioner for the period of six
section 12(5) of the Arbitration and
months. The Petitioner felt aggrieved by all
Conciliation Act, 1996.
these actions and wanted its claims to be
adjudicated upon by an Arbitral Tribunal,
having regard to the arbitration agreement.
Clause 9.2(A) of the SCC prescribes a
particular procedure for constitution of the
Arbitral Tribunal which stipulated that the
Respondent shall forward names of five
persons from the panel maintained by the
Respondent and the Petitioner would have to
choose his nominee arbitrator from the said
panel. The Respondent had furnished the
names of five such persons to the Petitioner
with a request to nominate its arbitrator from
the said panel. However, it was not
acceptable to the Petitioner as the Petitioner
felt that the panel prepared by the Respondent
consisted of serving or retired engineers
either of Respondent or of Government
Department or Public Sector Undertakings
who did not qualify as independent
arbitrators. According to the Petitioner, with
the amendment of Section 12 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 such a
panel, by Amendment Act, 2015, as prepared
by the Respondent, had lost its validity, as it
is contrary to the amended provisions of
Section 12 of the Act. The Petitioner
preferred the present petition Under Section
11(6) read with Section 11(8) of the Act for
appointment of sole arbitrator/arbitral
tribunal under Clause 9.2 of GCC read with
Clause 9.2 of SCC of the Contract.
 Matter arising out of dispute in execution of
Civil Whether High works contract was referred to Arbitrator by
(i) Amendment being beyond
Appeal Court was High Court. Arbitrator made his Award in
Nos. 8984-
Lion
right in limitation was not to be allowed as
9. Engineering favour of Appellant. Respondent challenged
8985 of granting amendment was not pressed. (ii) There
Consultants it under Section 34 of Act. The Respondent
2017 amendment in was no bar to plea of jurisdiction
vs. State of sought to amend its objections after three
Decided
M.P. and
objections being raised by way of objection under
On: filed by years, which was rejected by Trial Court.
Ors Section 34 of Act even if no such
22.03.201 Respondent High Court had allowed said amendment.
objection was raised under Section 16.
8 after period of Hence, Appellant filed present appeal.
three years (iii) Public policy of India refers to
(Explanation law in force in India whether State law
of Section 34) or Central law. (iv) Since amendment
application was not pressed, appeal
was rendered infructuous. Impugned
order was set aside.