Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-10-2021
..... not based on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse.42. given the fact that the amended act will now apply, and that the patent illegality ground for setting aside arbitral awards in international commercial arbitrations will not apply, it is necessary to advert to the grounds contained in ..... case, no such extraordinary circumstances exist. 53 whilst the decision of batts j may have been reversed by the court of appeals [404 f3 657 (2nd cir, 2005)]., i respectfully agree with his observations which are in line with the general approach taken by an enforcement court to the decision of the arbitral tribunal in question. ..... it was not a signatory, it had by its conduct rendered itself an additional party to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. in sarhank group v oracle corp (2005) 404 f3 657 the issue, on the enforcement of an egyptian award, was whether a non- signatory parent company was bound by an arbitration agreement on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-22-2021
..... not supplied to the other party would render a finding recorded by the arbitrator perverse and the same would fall within the expression 'patent illegality'. (viii) explanation (1) amended by 2015 amendment act clarifies the expression 'public policy of india' and its connotations for the purposes of reviewing arbitral awards. it has been made clear ..... and construction company limited supra while dealing 32 with powers of the court, deciding application under section 34 of the act, took note of the amendments brought about to section 34 of the act by amendment act 2015, explained the ratio of the decisions of the supreme court in ongc vs. western geco international limited', (2014 ..... deals with the power of the appellant to terminate the agreement, whereas, clause 20 which was incorporated by way of second addendum dated 09.09.2005 is an anti corruption clause. the aforesaid clauses which are relevant for the purposes of controversy involved in this appeal are reproduced below for the facility .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-28-2021
..... on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse.42. given the fact that the amended act will now apply, and that the patent illegality ground for setting aside arbitral awards in international commercial arbitrations will not apply, it is necessary to advert to the grounds contained ..... detriment of the licensee, the licensee was entitled to relief 8 (2003) 8 scc5939 (1998) 9 scc40710 (2002) 6 scc1611 (2005) 10 scc5112 (2008) 1 scc12521 from the licensor by amendment of the contract. he submitted that such intention is clarified from the fact that in such an event, the licensee was not ..... specifically superseded by these guidelines. a compendium or digest of principles evolved will be published periodically.73. it is thus clear, that the 31st march, 2005 notification specifically states that the guidelines adopted in february 1998 stand superseded. however, it provides, that the principles evolved through various tariff orders would continue to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-09-2021
..... 37. insofar as domestic awards made in india are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2-a), added by the amendment act, 2015, to section 34. here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not ..... for if an arbitrator gives no reasons for an award and contravenes section 31(3) of the 1996 act, that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face of the award.40. the change made in section 28(3) by the amendment act really follows what is stated in paras 42.3 to 45 in associate builders [associate builders v. ..... subject-matter of the award or if the award is in conflict with public policy of india, the award is liable to be set aside. explanation (1), amended by the 2015 amendment act, clarified the expression public policy of india and its connotations for the purposes of reviewing arbitral awards. it has been made clear that an award would be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-08-2021
..... 37. insofar as domestic awards made in india are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2-a), added by the amendment act, 2015, to section 34. here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not ..... dated 21st march, 2002 was passed in the said proceeding, appointing a sole arbitrator, who was subsequently replaced by another arbitrator.4. vide arbitral award dated 17.02.2005, the claim of the respondent- company was allowed and a sum of rs.7,43,46,772/- (rupees seven crores forty three lakhs forty six thousand seven hundred ..... with future interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum payable with effect from 1st march, 2005.5. aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant-state filed a petition under section 34 of the 1996 act before the district judge, raipur. vide order dated 14th march, 2006, the learned district judge declined to interfere with the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-14-2021
..... under section 9, except in circumstances specified in section 9(3), which necessarily means considering application on merits, even at the final stage.36. after amendment by the amendment act of 2015, the scope of section 17 has considerably been widened and the arbitral tribunal has expressly been conferred the same power, as the court under ..... gujarat high court under article 227 was premature and speculative, since the issue of whether the trial court had acted outside the bounds of its authority or without jurisdiction or whether the order suffered from patent perversity , could only be determined after an order had been passed by the trial court in the section 9 ..... gujarat high court under article 227 was premature and speculative, since the issue of whether the trial court had acted outside the bounds of its authority or without jurisdiction or whether the order suffered from patent perversity , could only be determined after an order had been passed by the trial court in the section 9 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-10-2021
..... may note here that the matter concerns section 34 proceedings for setting aside the award. in this case, the section 34 proceedings had already commenced when the 2015 amendment act came into effect. the court proceedings were already subject to the pre- 2015 legal position. in a conspectus of the aforesaid, a generally worded clause such as ..... arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the court, if the court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award: provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law ..... appears that the appellant had been attempting to sell the shares in msm since 2002. in furtherance of the said objective, a placement instruction dated 1 15.11.2005 was signed by the parties authorising standard chartered bank (for short scb ) as their agent to identify the purchaser for the appellant s shares in atlas. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-10-2021
..... continues to remain on the statute book, and governs the scope of power under section 11 for the present. the notification giving effect to the provisions of the 2019 amendment act which have been brought into force, reads as : ministry of law and justice (department of legal affairs) notification new delhi, the 30th august, 2019 s.o. ..... jurisdiction and admissibility in global reflections on international law, commerce and dispute resolution, liber amicorum in honour of robert briner (gerald aksen et al, eds) (icc publishing, 2005) at p 601, douglas at para 307, waibel at p 1277, paras 257 and 257 and 258, hanno wehland, jurisdiction and admissibility in proceedings under the icsid ..... -judge constitution bench of this court considered the scope of section 11 of the 1996 act, and held that the scheme of the act required the chief justice, or his designate, to 10 section 11(9) of the 1996 act. 11 (2005) 8 scc618 12 decide whether there is an arbitration agreement in terms of section 7 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-24-2021
..... above objectives. 234 (emphasis in bold supplied) 118.1. the aforesaid bill ultimately took the shape of the insolvency and bankruptcy code (amendment) act, 2019, being act 26 of 2019. this amendment act of 2019 not only provided that operational creditors would receive an amount that is not less than liquidation value of their debts or the amount ..... taken in the appeal filed against the impugned order and was raised for the first time in written submissions. nevertheless, according to yeida, the argument is patently incorrect, for it ignores the fact that the corporate debtor jil and its successor spvs would derive the benefits of both, the toll collected from expressway ..... welfare society v. jaiprakash associates ltd.; 40.5. the contention of jal that they faced impediments on account of the purported stay imposed by ngt is patently incorrect 49 as the stay by ngt was only on handing over possession without an occupation certificate, which had no bearing on the construction. moreover, jal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-08-2021
..... is final and insert the words the high court, and no appeal, including letters patent appeal, shall lie against such order. [note: this amendment ensures that a) an affirmative judicial finding regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement; and (b) the administrative act of appointing the arbitrator are final and non- appealabe.]. section 37, which is the ..... the memorandum of understanding in the said case did not incorporate an arbitration clause. thereafter, reference was specifically made to sbp & co. v. patel engg. ltd., (2005) 8 scc618and national insurance co. ltd. v. boghara polyfab (p) ltd., (2009) 1 scc267to observe that the legislative policy is essential to minimise court's interference ..... be found in the decision of the supreme court in shin- 20 etsu chemical co. ltd. v. aksh optifibre ltd., (2005) 7 scc234 (in the context of section 45 of the act), where the supreme court has ruled in favour of looking at the issues/controversy only prima facie.33. it is in this context .....
Tag this Judgment!