ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

Relev Relevan Key Summary MANU ID

ant t Issue Judgemen
Topic Section t

Appoin Section Wheth Facts: The Datar

tment 11(6): er in a appellant Switchgears
of an This case had Ltd. vs. Tata
Arbitra section falling entered Finance Ltd.
tor deals under into a lease and Ors.
with Section agreement (18.10.2000
failure to 11(6), with the -
perform the respondent SC) : MANU/
any opposit in respect SC/0651/20
function e party of certain 00
entruste cannot machinerie
d or any appoin s. A dispute
procedur t an arose
e agreed arbitrat between
upon by or the parties
the after and the
parties expiry respondent
of 30 sent a
days notice to
from the
the appellant
date of invoking
deman the
d. arbitratio
clause. The
respondent
appointed a
sole
Arbitrator
as per the
arbitration
clause of
the Lease
Agreement
and the
Arbitrator
in turn
issued a
notice to
the
appellant
asking
them to
make their
appearance
before
him .
Thereafter,
the
appellant
filed
application
before
Hon'ble the
Chief
Justice of
Bombay
and prayed
for
appointmen
t of another
Arbitrator
and the
respondent
opposed
this
application.
This
petition
was
rejected by
the Chief
Justice
holding
that as the
Arbitrator
had already
been
appointed
by the first
respondent
, the
Lessor, the
petition
was not
maintainabl
e. The
question
was
whether in
a case
falling
under Secti
on 11(6),
the
opposite
party
cannot
appoint an
arbitrator
after expiry
of 30 days
from the
date of
demand.

Held:
Appointme
nt of
arbitrator
after expiry
of 30 days
was held to
be valid
and the
court
stated that
in cases
arising
under Secti
on 11(6), if
the
opposite
party has
not made
an
appointmen
t within 30
days of
demand,
the right to
make
appointmen
t is not
forfeited
but
continues,
but an
appointmen
t has to be
made
before the
former files
application
under Secti
on
11 seeking
 appointmen
t of an
arbitrator.
Only then
the right of
the
opposite
party
ceases.

Arbitral Section Issue Facts: In Emkay

Awards 34: It to be this case a Global
provides decide dispute Financial
for d in arose Services Ltd.
setting this between a vs. Girdhar
aside of case registered Sondhi
an was of broker with (20.08.2018
arbitral jurisdic the -
award by tion National SC) : MANU/
making Stock SC/0875/20
an Exchange 18
applicati and its
on to the client
Court, on involving
the certain
grounds transaction
stated s. The
therein. client had
initiated
arbitration
proceeding
against the
broker
wherein the
claim was
rejected by
an award
given by
the
nominated
sole
arbitrator.
The
Respondent
then filed
an
application
under Secti
on 34 of
the Act,
before the
District
Court,
Delhi. By a
judgment,
the
Additional
District
Judge
referred to
the
exclusive
jurisdiction
clause
contained
in the
agreement,
and stated
that he
would have
no
jurisdiction
to proceed
further in
the matter
and,
therefore,
rejected
the Section
34 applicati
on filed in
Delhi.
However,
on appeal,
the Delhi
High Court
held that
the issue of
jurisdiction
in the
present
case was a
question of
fact and
parties
were not
allowed to
lead
evidence
on it.
Accordingly
, the High
Court
directed
District
Court to
decide this
question
(in relation
to
existence
of
territorial
jurisdiction
of Delhi
Courts)
after
framing a
specific
issue and
permitting
parties to
lead
evidence
on it.

Held: The
court held
the
moment a
seat is
determined
it would
vest the
'seat' curts
wit
exclusive
jurisdiction
i.e. if the
seat is
Mumbai, it
would vest
in Mumbai
Courts with
jurisdiction
owing to
the
agreement.
Secondly, it
was held
that
the Section
34 proceedi
ngs are
 summary
proceeding
s and
framing of
issues was
not an
integral
process of
the
proceeding
under Secti
on 34.

Arbitral Section Wheth Facts: The Anilkumar

Awards 34: It er subject Jinabhai
provides under matter of Patel (D) thr.
for Section arbitration L.Rs. vs.
setting 34(3) in the case Pravinchandr
aside of of involved a Jinabhai
an Arbitra division of Patel and
arbitral tion property Ors.
award by Act between (27.03.2018
making which appellant -
an states and SC) : MANU/
applicati that an respondent SC/0295/20
on to the applica and 18
Court, on tion for accordingly
the setting arbitration
grounds aside award was
stated arbitral passed
therein. award whereby
may certain
not be properties
made were given
after to the
three Appellant
month and
s have Respondent
elapse whereas
d from some other
the assets were
date kept
on undivided
which with equal
the rights and
party interest
making thereon of
the both
applica groups.
tion Appellant
had had filed an
receive arbitration
d the petition
arbitral under Secti
award. on 34 of
the Act
challenging
the award
andd
contended
that they
learnt
about the
arbitral
award only
on certain
date when
they were
served with
the notice
of
execution
petition
filed by
Respondent
.

Hence, the
issue in the
case
pertained
to Section
34(3) of
Arbitration
Act which
states that
an
application
for setting
aside
arbitral
award may
not be
made after
three
months
have
elapsed
from the
date on
which the
party
making the
application
had
received
the arbitral
award.

Held: It
was held
that with
respect to
the issue of
limitation
for filing
application
under Secti
on 34 of
the Act for
setting
aside the
arbitral
award, the
period of
limitation
would
commence
only after a
valid
delivery of
an arbitral
award
takes place
under Secti
on 31(5) of
the Act.
The Court
dismissed
the appeal
on the
ground that
Anilkumar
Patel,
accepted
the copy of
the award
on behalf
of the
entire
family in
his capacity
as the
Head of the
family and
 hence the
validity of
such an
award
cannot be
challenged
by the
family
members
on the
ground of
not having
received a
copy of the
award.

Interna No Wheth Facts: This Bar Council

tional Relevant er appeal was of India vs.
Arbitra Section there filed A.K. Balaji
tion is a against the and Ors.
bar to order (13.03.2018
a wherein the -
foreign directions SC) : MANU/
lawyer were issued SC/0239/20
for to restrict 18
conduc foreign law
ting firms/lawye
arbitrat rs to
ion in practice in
India India.

Held: Ther
e is
absolutely
no bar to a
foreign
lawyer for
conducting
arbitrations
 in India. If
the matter
is governed
by an
internation
al
commercial
arbitration
agreement,
conduct of
proceeding
s may fall
with the
provisions
of the
Arbitration
Act. Even
in such
cases,
Code of
Conduct, if
any,
applicable
to the legal
profession
in India
had to be
followed.

Arbitra Section Wheth Facts: Mod K.K. Modi vs.

tion 7: Arbitr er the i Family K.N. Modi
agree ation mentio owned and Ors.
ments agreeme ned various (04.02.1998
nt clause public -
was an limited SC) : MANU/
arbitrat companies. SC/0092/19
ion They also 98
clause owned
or not. various
assets.
Differences
arose
between
the parties
and
respondent
invoked the
arbitration
clause. The
issue in
this case
was
whether
this clause
was an
arbitration
clause or
not.

Held: It
was held
that it was
not an
arbitration
clause.
Supreme
Court
observed
that while
there are
no
conclusive
tests, one
can follow
a set of
guidelines
in deciding
the terms
 of the
agreement
i.e.
whether
they have
agreed to
solve
disputes
through
arbitration
or whether
the
agreement
is to refer
an issue to
an expert.

Appoin Section Nature Facts: Sect S.B.P. and

tment 11(6): T of ion Co. vs. Patel
of an his power 12(2) of Engineering
Arbitra section under the act Ltd. and Ors.
tor deals Section provides (26.10.2005
with 11(6) full -
failure to freedom to SC) : MANU/
perform the parties SC/1787/20
any to agree 05
function upon a
entruste procedure
d or any for the
procedur appointmen
e agreed t of the
upon by arbitrator.
the Usually,
parties the parties
provide for
the
appointmen
t of a
named
arbitrator,
or in the
case of an
institutional
arbitration,
a designee
institution.
Ii few of
such
procedure
for
appointmen
t of the
arbitrators,
it is left for
future
agreement
between
the
parties.In
situations,
where the
parties are
not able to
agree on
the
procedure,
or the
arbitrators
are unable
to agree
upon the
third
arbitrator,
or the
designee
institution
is unable to
perform its
functions
related to
the
procedure
of
appointmen
t of the
arbitral
tribunal, Se
ction
11(6) of
the Act
provides
for such
appointmen
t by giving
a default
power to
Chief
justice to
decide. The
issue in
this case
was
regarding
the nature
of such
power.

Held: The
Supreme
Court
clarified
and
explaind
that the
function of
Supreme
 Court or
High Court
is judicial,
quasi-
judicial &
not purely
administrat
ive.

Arbitral Section The Facts: The Oil & Natural

Awards 34: It scope point of Gas
provides and controversy Corporation
for ambit in this case Ltd. vs. SAW
setting of was the Pipes Ltd.
aside of court's scope and (17.04.2003
an jurisdic ambit of -
arbitral tion court's SC) : MANU/
award by where jurisdiction SC/0314/20
making award where 03
an passed award
applicati by passed by
on to the arbitral arbitral
Court, on award award is
the is challenged
grounds challen under Secti
stated ged on 34 of
therein. under the Act.
Section Held: Supr
34 of eme Court
the held that
Act. the award
could be
set aside
when the
applying
party
provided
proof that
it was
under some
incapacity;
or the
arbitration
agreement
was not
valid; or
the award
dealt with a
dispute
contemplat
ed by the
terms of
the
arbitration
clause; or
the
applying
party was
not
properly
notified of
the
appointmen
t of the
arbitrator.
Additionally
, the
compositio
n of the
Tribunal
has to be in
accordance
with the
agreement
of the
parties for
 a court to
set aside
the award.

Further it
was held
that the
expression
public
policy as
found
under Secti
on
48 would
not bring
within its
fold the
grounds of
patent
illegality.
Hence, the
enforcemen
t of the
award
could not
be refused
on the
grounds of
it being
against the
substantive
laws &
terms of
contract

Referri Section Wheth Facts: Issu P. Anand

ng 8: Power er e in this Gajapathi
parties to refer during case was Raju and
to parties penden whether Ors. vs.
arbitrat to cy of during P.V.G. Raju
ion arbitratio an pendency (Died) and
where n where appeal of an Ors.
an there is a court appeal a (28.03.2000
arbitrat an can court can -
ion arbitratio refer refer the SC) : MANU/
agree n the parties to SC/0281/20
ment is agreeme parties arbitration 00
there nt to or whether
arbitrat the court
ion or can stay
whethe the Judicial
r the Proceeding
court s and refer
can the parties
stay to
the arbitration.
Judicial Held: The
Procee arbitration
dings agreement
and is valid
refer unser Secti
the on 7 of the
parties new act
to and
arbitrat reference
ion. under Secti
on 8 during
the
pendency
of an
appeal can
be made to
arbitration.

Interim Section Wheth Facts: The Bharat

measur 9: Interi er the appellant Aluminium
es by m Indian and Company vs.
court measure Court respondent Kaiser
s etc. by can executed Aluminium
Court provide an Technical
interim agreement Services Inc.
measu in relation (28.01.2016
res to supply of -
where equipment SC) : MANU/
the , SC/0090/20
seat of modernisati 16
arbitrat on and up-
ion is gradation
outside of the
India. production
facilities of
the
appellant.
Certain
dispute
arose
between
the parties
leading to
arbitration
proceeding
s. The
question
arose in
this case
was
whether
the Indian
Court can
provide
interim
measures
where the
seat of
arbitration
 is outside
India.

Held: Secti
on 9 is
limited in
its
application
to
arbitration
which takes
place in
India,
however
after the
amendmen
t of 2015,
the
provisions
apply to
Internation
al
Commercial
Arbitration
even if the
place of
arbitration
is outside
India.

Enforce Section Enforc Facts: Enfo Shri Lal

ment 48: This eability rceability of Mahal Ltd.
of section of Foreign vs. Progetto
foreign provides Foreign Awards Grano Spa
awards for Awards was under (03.07.2013
condition was considerati -
s for under on. SC) : MANU/
enforcem consid Held: Supr SC/0655/20
ent of eration eme Court 13
foreign held and
awards. made a
distiction
between
public
policy when
used in the
context of
enforcemen
t of
domestic
awards &
foreign
awards, by
holding
that in the
latter a
more
restricted
meaning
was
applicable.
The
enforcemen
t of a
foreign
award can
be refused
only if such
enforcemen
t is found
to be
contrary to
(1)
fundament
al policy of
Indian law;
or (2) the
 interests of
India; or
(3) justice
or morality.
The
objections
raised by
the
Appellant
do not fall
in any of
these
categories
and,
therefore,
the foreign
awards
cannot be
held to be
contrary to
public
policy of
India as
contemplat
ed
Under Secti
on 48(2)
(b).

Referri Section Wheth Facts: In Haryana

ng 8: Power er an this case Telecom Ltd.
parties to refer arbitrat party A vs. Sterlite
to parties or filed a Industries
arbitrat to would winding up (India) Ltd.
ion arbitratio have petition (13.07.1999
where n where jurisdic before High -
an there is tion to Court and SC) : MANU/
arbitrat an windin Party B SC/0401/19
ion arbitratio g up moved an
agree n compa application 99
ment is agreeme ny. to refer the
there nt matter to
arbitration
as there
was an
arbitration
agreement.
Issue in
this case
whether an
arbitrator
would have
jurisdiction
to winding
up
company.

Held: An
arbitrator
not
withstandin
g any
agreements
between
the parties
would have
no
jurisdiction
to entertain
a matter
which is
non-
arbitrable

Appoin Section Wheth Facts: The M.M.T.C.

tment 10: Parti er an respondent Limited vs.
of es can agree in this case Sterlite
Certain appoint ment is claimed Industries
Numbe as many invalid that it has (India) Ltd.
r of number ated not (18.11.1996
Arbitra of due to received -
tors arbitrato appoin certain due SC) : MANU/
rs,but tment amount SC/1298/19
the of even from the 96
selection numbe appellant
should r of and hence
be in odd arbitrat the
numbers ors. arbitration
. Even a clause was
sole invoked. as
arbitrato per the
r can be agreement
appointe the
d respondent

Section appointed

11: Appo their

intment arbitrator

of but the

Arbitrato appelant

rs claimed
that
arbitration
cannot be
resorted.
While the
proceeding
commence
d, New Act
came into
force. The
first issue
which
arose was
whether
the case
will
proceed
according
to old act
or new act.
and second
issue was
whether an
agreement
is
invalidated
due to
appointmen
t of even
number of
arbitrators.

Held: It
was held
that the
proceeding
will
commence
according
to new act.
For the
second
issue the
court held
that If the
parti93es
provide for
appointmen
t of even
number
arbitrators
that does
not mean
that the
agreement
 becomes
invalid.
Under Secti
on 11(3),
the two
arbitrators
should then
appoint the
third
arbitrator
who shall
act as a
presiding
arbitrator.

Interpr Section Wheth Facts: The Union of

etation 33: This er an respondent India (UOI)
of section arbitrat and the vs. G.S.
arbitral provides or can appellant Atwal and
award that unilate had Co.
within 30 rally enetered (Asansole)
days or enlarg into an (22.02.1996
time on e his agreement -
which own for SC) : MANU/
parties power excavation SC/1130/19
agrees, to of feeder 96
from the arbitrat canal. A
time e any dispute
award of arose
was dispute between
given- s them and
Parties arbitration
can clause was
request invoked.
for The
correctio question
n or which
error to arose in
the this case
arbitral was
tribunal whether an
arbitrator
can
unilaterally
enlarge his
own power
to arbitrate
any of
disputes?

Held: It
was held
that the
arbitrator
cannot
enlarge the
scope of of
the
arbitrabiity
and it is for
the court to
decide the
claim in
dispute or
any clause
or any
things
related
therof.
Further the
court held
"mere
acceptance
or
acquiescen
ce to the
jurisdiction
of the
arbitrator
for
adjudicatio
n of the
dispute as
to the
extent of
the
arbitration
agreement
or
arbitrability
of the
dispute
does not
disentitle
the
appellant
to have the
remedy
under Secti
on
33 through
the court."