Law in one Paragraph

M/s S.B.P. & CO. v. Patel Engineering [(2005) 8 SCC 618]: Supreme Court of India Once a question of jurisdiction and validity of arbitration agreement is decided by the Court while appointing an arbitrator same cannot be decided again by the arbitral tribunal 11. Section 16 of the Act only makes explicit what is even […]

Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited vs. Datawind Innovations Private Limited and Ors. [AIR 2017 SC 2105]: Supreme Court of India The moment the seat of arbitration is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause 20. A conspectus of all the aforesaid provisions shows that the moment the seat is designated, it is akin

Inder Singh Rekhi v. Delhi Development Authority [(1988) 2 SCC 338]: Supreme Court of India Dispute or difference is a pre-requisite for reference of a dispute to arbitration. Dispute entails a positive element and assertion in denying, not merely inaction. 4. Therefore, in order to be entitled to order of reference under section 20, it

Shri Satender Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi [2010 (168) DLT 15]: Delhi High Court Limitation period commences when the cause of action accrues and in construction contracts such period of limitation starts to run from the date of submission of final bill 16. A summary of the conclusions on reading of the aforesaid relevant

Kiritkumar Futarmal Jain vs. Valencia Corporation [Special Civil Application No. 15145 of 2019]: Gujarat High Court Once an application of interim measure is decided by the Court under section 9 of the Indian Arbitration Act, it cannot be decided again by the Arbitral Tribunal under section 17(2) of the Act 21.6. In the considered opinion

Velugubanti Hari Babu vs. Parvathini Narasimha Rao and Ors. [2018 (3) ALD 456]: Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court An interim order under section 9 of the Arbitration Act continues till conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and does not stop to operate with constitution of arbitral tribunal 29. As regards the submission that the interim

Lite Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Airports Authority of India [MANU/MH/3423/2019]: Bombay High Court A brief on the unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator by a person who is party to the dispute. 26. In summary, the legal principles are these: (a)    An officer or employee of one party cannot be the arbitrator or, upon

Bharat Aluminium Co. vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Ltd. [(2012) 9 SCC 552] Court at the seat of arbitration will have the supervisory jurisdiction despite it not having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of arbitration  96. We are of the opinion, the term “subject matter of the arbitration” cannot be confused with “subject matter of the