High Court-Allahabad

Whether unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by a party is illegal and void  | What would be the consequence of an arbitral award passed by arbitrator appointed unilaterally by a party – Dinesh Chandra Vs. Eadred Finance Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. – Allahabad High Court

In this case, agreement contains that sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the lender and the same was appointed by one party and passed award.

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that once the provisions of Section 12(5) have been interpreted by Hon’ble Supreme Court having application to clause in agreement providing for unilateral appointment of arbitrators, unless in those circumstances, after the dispute has arisen, a written consent is given by the other party, arbitrator appointed would be ineligible.

The Hon’ble Court also held that the award which has been passed by a de jure ineligible arbitrator suffers from patent illegality and cannot be sustained.

Whether unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by a party is illegal and void  | What would be the consequence of an arbitral award passed by arbitrator appointed unilaterally by a party – Dinesh Chandra Vs. Eadred Finance Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Arbitral Tribunal cannot recall or modify its award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – National Highways Authority of India Vs. Musafir and Others – Allahabad High Court

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that:

(i) None of provisions of Arbitration Act, give arbitral tribunal the power to recall and modify its award. Arbitral tribunals are not courts of law which are bestowed with inherent powers. Arbitrators are required to act within the confines of the arbitration agreement, and the framework enshrined in the Arbitration Act. Any act which the arbitral tribunal is not empowered to do under the Arbitration Act is void ab initio.
(ii) The authority of arbitral tribunals to correct, interpret, or supplement their awards does not extend to revisiting the merits of the dispute or reconsidering substantive issues that have already been decided. Arbitral tribunals are bound by the principle of functus officio, which holds that once an award has been rendered, the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the dispute is terminated, and it lacks authority to revisit or modify its decision in absence of specific statutory provisions to the contrary.

Arbitral Tribunal cannot recall or modify its award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – National Highways Authority of India Vs. Musafir and Others – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

The contours of the proceedings under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 also is limited to the scope and the ambit of challenge under Section 34 – Gaursons Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aakash Engineers and Contractors – Allahabad High Court

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that:

A. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was deliberately engrafted in a couched manner bearing in mind the fact that there should be limited intervention of Courts in arbitral proceedings especially after the proceedings have been concluded and the award has been pronounced by the arbitral tribunal.
B. The yardsticks and the parameters under which intervention by the courts of law in the proceedings against the award stands bracketed in Section 34 of the Act which obviously starts with caveat that the arbitral award may only be set aside by the Court if the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal:
(i) was under some incapacity;
(ii) the arbitral agreement is not valid under the law for the time being in force;
(iii) a party making the application was not given proper notice of appointment of arbitrator or he was unable to present his case;
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated or not falling within the terms of the submission of the arbitrator;
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties unless such agreement was in conflict with the provisions;
(vi) the subject matter of dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under law for the time being in force;
(vii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.

The contours of the proceedings under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 also is limited to the scope and the ambit of challenge under Section 34 – Gaursons Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aakash Engineers and Contractors – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

An Arbitral Award is not in reality a Court Decree as defined under Section 2(2) of the CPC, 1908, Objections under Section 47 of CPC, 1908 cannot be allowed in proceedings under Section 36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Shri Raj Veer Singh – Allahabad High Court

Issues in this case:

(i) Whether an Arbitral Award is a Court Decree?
(ii) Interpretation of Section 36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 47 of the CPC, 1908
(iii) Key distinction between Court Decrees and Arbitral Awards
(iv) Objections in Execution Proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
(v) Writ Jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge an Arbitral Award
(vi) Imposition of Costs in cases of frivolous litigation

An Arbitral Award is not in reality a Court Decree as defined under Section 2(2) of the CPC, 1908, Objections under Section 47 of CPC, 1908 cannot be allowed in proceedings under Section 36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Shri Raj Veer Singh – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Reduction in interest rate is a modification of original arbitration award and the Court does not have power under Sec. 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to modify an award – Sushil Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another – Allahabad High Court

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court holds that:

(i) It is trite law, settled by a catena of Supreme Court judgements that the Court does not have the power under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to modify an award. The Court under Section 34(2) of the Act has the power to sever parts of the award and set aside the same in toto, if the severance does not impact the remaining award that is upheld under Section 34 of the Act.

(ii) The principle expounded by the Supreme Court in Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigration Company Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 89 SC is specifically on the point of the modification of the rate of interest and Supreme Court has categorically held that no such modification is permissible under Section 34 of the Act.

Reduction in interest rate is a modification of original arbitration award and the Court does not have power under Sec. 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to modify an award – Sushil Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top