LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label arbitration act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arbitration act. Show all posts
Friday, May 10, 2013

ARBITRATION ACT = The law is well settled that where an Arbitrator had already been appointed and intimation thereof had been conveyed to the other party, a separate application for appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable. Once the power has been exercised under the Arbitration Agreement, there is no power left to, once again, refer the same disputes to arbitration under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, unless the order closing the proceedings is subsequently set aside. = when the Arbitral Tribunal is already seized of the disputes between the parties to the Arbitration Agreement, constitution of another Arbitral Tribunal in respect of those same issues which are already pending before the Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication, would be without jurisdiction.= In view of the language of Article 20 of the Arbitration Agreement which provided that the arbitration proceedings would be held in accordance with the rules and procedures of the International Chamber of Commerce or UNCITRAL, Devas was entitled to invoke the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC for the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. Article 19 of the Agreement provided that the rights and responsibilities of the parties thereunder would be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of India. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between the law which was to operate as the governing law of the Agreement and the law which was to govern the arbitration proceedings. Once the provisions of the ICC Rules of Arbitration had been invoked by Devas, the proceedings initiated there under could not be interfered with in a proceeding under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. The invocation of the ICC Rules would, of course, be subject to challenge in appropriate proceedings but not by way of an application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. Where the parties had agreed that the procedure for the arbitration would be governed by the ICC Rules, the same would necessarily include the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Arbitration Agreement and the said Rules. Arbitration Petition No.20 of 2011 under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for the appointment of an Arbitrator must, therefore, fail and is rejected, but this will not prevent the Petitioner from taking recourse to other provisions of the aforesaid Act for appropriate relief. The Arbitration Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

›
Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2011 ANTRIX CORP. LTD. ...
Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The scope of interference under Section 34 of the Act does not permit the Court to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence in order to come to a different conclusion only because it is possible to do so. The Court is also not inclined to examine the correspondence between the parties to which both counsel referred to substantiate their respective positions as regards which party should be held responsible for the performance tests not having taken place as envisaged by the contract. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence placed before it is a perfectly plausible one. As regards the submission that JK did not produce documentary evidence of making a payment of Rs. 2.58 crores to Enmas, indeed it does not appear that such contention was raised before the Tribunal. ALIL cannot be permitted to raise this issue at this stage. 35. No grounds have been made out for interference with the impugned Award of the Tribunal under Section 34 of the Act. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 30,000/- which will be paid by ALIL to JK within a period of four weeks from today. The bank guarantee furnished by JK shall stand discharged.

›
OMP No. 402 of 2005 Page 1 of 25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. No. 402/2005 Reserved on: February 10, 2012 Decision o...
Friday, September 2, 2011

arbitration - With regard to the effect of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the same, in our view was applicable at the pre-arbitral stage, when the Arbitrator had not also been appointed. Once the Arbitrator was appointed and the arbitral proceedings were commenced, the SIAC Rules became applicable shutting out the applicability of Section 42 and for that matter Part I of the 1996 Act, including the right of appeal under Section 37 thereof. 41 40. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed and all interim orders are vacated.

›
                                         REPORTABLE               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                   CIVIL APPELLAT...