Justice A. K. Patnaik

An arbitral tribunal cannot of course make use of their personal knowledge of the facts of the dispute, which is not a part of the record, to decide the dispute – P.R. Shah Shares & Stock Broker (P) Ltd. Vs. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. & Ors.  – Supreme Court

An arbitral tribunal cannot of course make use of their personal knowledge of the facts of the dispute, which is not a part of the record, to decide the dispute. But an arbitral tribunal can certainly use their expert or technical knowledge or the general knowledge about the particular trade, in deciding a matter. In fact, that is why in many arbitrations, persons with technical knowledge, are appointed as they will be well-versed with the practices and customs in the respective fields. All that the arbitrators have referred is the market practice. That cannot be considered as using some personal knowledge of facts of a transaction, to decide a dispute.

An arbitral tribunal cannot of course make use of their personal knowledge of the facts of the dispute, which is not a part of the record, to decide the dispute – P.R. Shah Shares & Stock Broker (P) Ltd. Vs. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. & Ors.  – Supreme Court Read Post »

Invocation of arbitral reference in multiple, multi-party agreements with intrinsically interlinked causes of action – Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. Vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. & Ors. – Supreme Court

(2017) ibclaw.in 247 SC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Chloro Controls (I) Pvt. Ltd.v.Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.

Invocation of arbitral reference in multiple, multi-party agreements with intrinsically interlinked causes of action – Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. Vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

The term ‘any person’ appearing u/s 27(2)(c) is wide enough to cover not merely the witnesses, but also the parties to the proceeding and if a party fails to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Tribunal can proceed ex-parte, as provided u/s 25(c) – Delta Distilleries Ltd. Vs. United Spirits Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court

Section 25 (c) provides that in the event a party fails to appear at an oral hearing or to produce documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings, and make the arbitral award on the evidence before it. This evidence can be sought either from any third person or from a party to the proceeding itself. The substitution of the phrase “parties and witnesses” under Section 43 of the earlier act by the phrase ’any person’ cannot make any difference, or cannot be read to whittle down the powers of the Arbitral Tribunal to seek assistance from the court where any person who is not cooperating with the Arbitral Tribunal or where any evidence is required from any person, be it a party to the proceedings or others. It is an enabling provision, and it has to be read as such. The term ’any person’ appearing under Section 27 (2) (c) is wide enough to cover not merely the witnesses, but also the parties to the proceeding. It is undoubtedly clear that if a party fails to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Tribunal can proceed ex-parte, as provided under Section 25 (c). At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the Tribunal is required to make an award on the merits of the claim placed before it. For that purpose, if any evidence becomes necessary, the Tribunal ought to have the power to get the evidence, and it is for this purpose only that this enabling section has been provided.

The term ‘any person’ appearing u/s 27(2)(c) is wide enough to cover not merely the witnesses, but also the parties to the proceeding and if a party fails to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Tribunal can proceed ex-parte, as provided u/s 25(c) – Delta Distilleries Ltd. Vs. United Spirits Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether there was an arbitration agreement ought to have been decided by the designate of the Chief Justice and only if the finding was in the affirmative he could have proceeded to appoint the Arbitrator – Bharat Rasiklal Ashra Vs. Gautam Rasiklal Ashra & Anr. – Supreme Court

I. Case Reference Case Citation : (2017) ibclaw.in 450 SC Case Name : Bharat Rasiklal Ashra Vs. Gautam Rasiklal

Whether there was an arbitration agreement ought to have been decided by the designate of the Chief Justice and only if the finding was in the affirmative he could have proceeded to appoint the Arbitrator – Bharat Rasiklal Ashra Vs. Gautam Rasiklal Ashra & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top