Section 8, 11 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961(The Act), are provisions relating to ‘reference to arbitration’, ‘appointment of arbitrators’ and the ‘scope of appealable orders’ respectively. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement delivered in the case of Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,2 noted that the Parliament may need to have a re-look at Section 11 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
judicial intervention
“Expeditious disposal, finality of arbitral awards, limited judicial intervention and limited review of awards can be defined as four pillars on which the edifice of law governing “Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism” is built. These four pillars are not exhaustive, but can be described as essential pillars”.1 INTRODUCTION The independence from the sluggish and overburdened judicial system has made arbitration the preferred option for parties to resolve their high-stake and technically unique disputes discreetly, amicably and
preliminary issue
INTRODUCTION Period of limitation is a timeframe prescribed by law within which a suit, appeal or an application has to be made, beyond which it will be liable to be dismissed. Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963, lays down that every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period i.e. the period of limitation shall be dismissed, even when limitation has not been set up as a defence. The Civil Procedure
The Delhi High Court in a recent judgment Aarka Sports Management Pvt. Ltd. v. KalsiBuildcon Pvt. Ltd.1 , rejected the Application of the Petitioner seeking Appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as “The Act”) on the ground that the agreement between the parties did not provide any Clause for seat/venue of arbitration. FACTS OF THE CASE Aarka Sports Management Private Limited (herein after referred
In a recent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara super express Toll way Private Limited vs. National Highways Authority of India, the Hon’ble High court interpreted arbitration rules of the Society for affordable redressal of disputes (herein after referred to as “SAROD”) pertaining to a dispute between two nominated arbitrators regarding appointment of the presiding arbitrator. The Hon’ble court also returned findings as to when a petition under Section
Article, Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *