Arbitration-Supreme Court

Section 18(4) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Development) Act, 2006, vests jurisdiction for arbitration in the Facilitation Council where the supplier is located – Harcharan Dass Gupta Vs. Union of India – Supreme Court

The issue relating to ‘seat of arbitration’ in all cases covered under the MSMED Act is settled in view of the pronouncement in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Unit 2) & Anr., (2022) ibclaw.in 131 SC. This position is also true by virtue of the specific provision of the MSMED Act, that is, Section 18(4) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Development) Act, 2006, which vests jurisdiction for arbitration in the Facilitation Council where the supplier is located.

Section 18(4) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Development) Act, 2006, vests jurisdiction for arbitration in the Facilitation Council where the supplier is located – Harcharan Dass Gupta Vs. Union of India – Supreme Court Read Post »

Arbitral Tribunal can exclude a period from the date on which the cause of action arose till the date on which the award is made for the purpose of grant of interest | It can grant interest for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made | There can be one rate of interest for the whole period or one or more rates of interest for the sub-divided periods | The sum awarded in Section 31(7)(a) of Arbitration Act would mean principal amount plus the interest awarded – Interstate Construction Vs. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. – Supreme Court

This judgment covers:
A. Interpretation of clause (a) of Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
B. Whether Interest awarded for the past period could not have been subjected to further levy of interest during the pendente lite or post award period on merger with the principal amount as this would amount to levy of compound interest
C. Disposed of

Arbitral Tribunal can exclude a period from the date on which the cause of action arose till the date on which the award is made for the purpose of grant of interest | It can grant interest for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made | There can be one rate of interest for the whole period or one or more rates of interest for the sub-divided periods | The sum awarded in Section 31(7)(a) of Arbitration Act would mean principal amount plus the interest awarded – Interstate Construction Vs. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Once an application in due compliance with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the court has jurisdiction, it should be to see whether its jurisdiction has been ousted – K. Mangayarkarasi and Anr. Vs. N.J. Sundaresan and Anr. – Supreme Court

Once there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, a judicial authority before whom an action is brought covering the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement is under a positive obligation to refer parties to arbitration by enforcing the terms of the contract. There is no element of discretion left in the court or judicial authority to obviate the legislative mandate of compelling parties to seek recourse to arbitration. Once an application in due compliance with Section 8 of the Act of 1996 is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the court has jurisdiction. It should be to see whether its jurisdiction has been ousted.

Once an application in due compliance with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the court has jurisdiction, it should be to see whether its jurisdiction has been ousted – K. Mangayarkarasi and Anr. Vs. N.J. Sundaresan and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether while exercising power under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it would be permissible to hold that some of the claims raised are non-arbitrable or fall within excepted category? – Office for Alternative Architecture Vs. IRCON Infrastructure and Services Ltd. – Supreme Court

Whether while exercising power under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court has to confine its consideration as to the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. If so, whether it would be permissible, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11, to hold that some of the claims raised are non-arbitrable or fall within excepted category?

Whether while exercising power under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it would be permissible to hold that some of the claims raised are non-arbitrable or fall within excepted category? – Office for Alternative Architecture Vs. IRCON Infrastructure and Services Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Where the arbitration proceedings are still underway, but statement of defence has already been filed, there it would not be open for the parties to raise an objection of lack of jurisdiction in view of the applicability of MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Gayatri Project Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password 12,000+ Judgments in Insolvency Law Reported by IBC Laws

Where the arbitration proceedings are still underway, but statement of defence has already been filed, there it would not be open for the parties to raise an objection of lack of jurisdiction in view of the applicability of MP Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Gayatri Project Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is mandatory in nature | There is no requirement of existence of a written arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Ac | Section 2(f) of the SARFAESI Act does not leave out the entities who are banks but taking the loans in the capacity of a borrower – Bank of India Vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court

This judgment covers:
A. Scope and ambit of Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002
B. Meaning of the expression “non-payment of any amount due including interest”
C. Section 11 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 will not apply to disputes between Bank(s), Financial Institution(s), ARC(s) or Qualified Buyer(s), who are otherwise a Borrower
D. Definition of ‘Borrower’ in Section 2(f) of the SARFAESI Act
F. There is no requirement of existence of a written arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act
G. Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory in nature
H. Conclusion
I. Disposed of

Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is mandatory in nature | There is no requirement of existence of a written arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the SARFAESI Ac | Section 2(f) of the SARFAESI Act does not leave out the entities who are banks but taking the loans in the capacity of a borrower – Bank of India Vs. Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

The Courts should refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank guarantee except in cases of fraud of an egregious nature or in cases where allowing encashment would result in irretrievable injustice – Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password 12,000+ Judgments in Insolvency Law Reported by IBC Laws

The Courts should refrain from interfering with the invocation of a bank guarantee except in cases of fraud of an egregious nature or in cases where allowing encashment would result in irretrievable injustice – Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Bansal Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether a dispute raised by an insured after giving a full and final discharge voucher to the insurer can be referred to arbitration? – Arabian Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password 12,000+ Judgments in Insolvency Law Reported by IBC Laws

Whether a dispute raised by an insured after giving a full and final discharge voucher to the insurer can be referred to arbitration? – Arabian Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Login
Scroll to Top