Digi - Legal Insights

There is no existence of arbitration agreement and therefore, decision of High Court to appoint an arbitrator requires interference.

Arbitral Tribunal is not justified in awarding pre-award/pendente lite interest in favor of respondent-claimant, contrary to Clause 16(3) and Clause 64(5) of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and this award is liable to be set aside.

Denial of legal representatives right to challenge an award under Section 34 would undermine Arbitration Acts intent as comprehensive dispute resolution framework hence, impugned order of High Court is affirmed.

High Court wrongly declined prayer for arbitration hence, impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside and former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes between parties.

Award dated 21.10.2013 was found to be patently illegal, as it denied owners rightful compensation under both Clause 7 and Clause 13 of agreement.

Arbitration award is deemed unenforceable against Plaintiffs due to noncompliance with Section 21 of Act and contravenes proviso to Section 47 of Act.

High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 7(5) of Act by rejecting existence of arbitration agreement between parties hence, impugned order set aside and Advocate of Bombay High Court is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes and differences between parties.

Literal reading of Consent Award shows a clear, enforceable obligation for the Promoters hence, enforcement Petition is granted, requiring Promoters to pay or deposit Rs. 15,86,17,808/- within 30 days, with amount subject to outcome of ongoing proceedings involving EY and Promoters.

Considering valid arbitration agreement stated in Working Capital Demand Loan Agreement dated August 2, 2018, dispute is referred to arbitration, with an arbitrator to be appointed by parties as per Arbitration Act.

Appointment of unilateral arbitrator was deemed inappropriate, but Tribunals formation followed protocol and Award was not invalidated by unilateral appointment claims.

Tribunal overstepped its mandate by altering its own framework and discriminated between parties, leading to decision to set aside entire Arbitral Award hence, impugned Judgment is upheld.

Impugned Order is quashed and suit is directed to be returned to Respondent no.1, with refund of Court fees in accordance with rules and disputes between parties will be referred to arbitration, with provisions for appointing an arbitrator if necessary.

Arbitral Tribunals decision to not stay Bhutan Contract is justified, as granting such an injunction could cause grave harm.

Tribunals previous order remains relevant as it reflects evolving conduct of parties over four years and allowing disposals of key assets could jeopardize arbitrations outcome hence, tribunal is positioned to determine appropriate interim measures and assess litigation costs incurred throughout process for fairness in proceedings.

Reference to arbitration is necessary to address multiple disputes effectively hence, Former Judge of High Court is appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes and differences between parties.

Respondent must maintain Bank Guarantee No. 00040100008747, issued by Axis Bank Limited on 21 August 2015, for USD 9,710,490, EUR 529,370, and INR 52,42,50,100 and if guarantee expires for any reason, Respondent is required to provide new equivalent bank guarantee in favor of Petitioner for same amounts.

Case establishes that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties hence, Advocate of High Court is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes and differences between parties arising out of Tax Invoices.

Interim Applications by third parties without contract privity with DA are dismissed without intervention in Section 9 Petition.

NHAIs repeated inability to submit affidavit evidence on time, ultimately determining that Arbitrators award of compensation based on 22 sale deeds was justified and did not exhibit patent illegality.

District Court rightly set aside arbitrators award under Section 34 of Act, allowing parties to agree on new arbitrator or seek court intervention for appointment hence, no reason to interfere with the same.