- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Proceedings - Learned single Judge, in our view, has rightly held that the principles analogues to Order XII Rule 6 CPC are equally applicable to arbitration proceedings - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 12, Rule 6. (180) P.L.R. (Del.)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Though general reference to an earlier contract is not sufficient for incorporation of an arbitration clause in the later contract, a general reference to a standard form would be enough for incorporation of the arbitration clause - We are of the opinion that a general reference to a consensual standard form is sufficient for incorporation of an arbitration clause - In other words, general reference to a standard form of contract of one party will be enough for incorporation of arbitration clause - We are in agreement with the judgment in M.R. Engineers and Contractors Private Limited v. Som Datt Builders Limited, (2009) 7 SCC 696, with a modification that a general reference to a standard form of contract of one party along with those of trade associations and professional bodies will be sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause. (S.C.) (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Where arbitrator with the consent of the parties has been appointed after commencement of 1996 Act, no action can be taken as per old Act and proceedings shall hold and conducted under new Act - Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940). (182) P.L.R.
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Appointment of an Arbitrator of one of the employees of the Corporation performs a judicial function under the Arbitration Act and will not act as a subordinate to his superior officer as on the administrative side - After being appointed as an Arbitrator, her function shall not be seen as the order passed by subordinate authority that would require approval from the superior officer in the Corporation for the latter to modify that order or approve of this order - The order of the Arbitrator can be assailed or modified merely within the four corners of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996. (182) P.L.R.
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) – Arbitration clause – Before the appointment of the arbitrator – Contractor was required to deposit the security amount - Upheld. Gulshan Rai Jain-II (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Arbitrator - Jurisdiction - Petitioner has its Registered Office at New Delhi - It has been sued as defendant No.1 at the address of New Delhi and the instant revision petition has also been filed with the same address - The loan, according to the petitioner, was also disbursed at New Delhi - Plaintiff-guarantor and defendant No.4-borrower are residents of Kaithal - In these circumstances, there is no justification for conducting the arbitration proceedings at Chennai, where the plaintiff and defendant No.4 cannot effectively defend the arbitration proceedings - They shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the arbitration proceedings are conducted at Chennai - Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted at either of following places i.e. Kaithal, Ambala, New Delhi or Chandigarh at the option of the petitioner. (173) P.L.R.
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Award - Pronounced in Court - Period of limitation starts running from the notice of the award by the respondent and would expire after 30 days in terms of Article 119 of the Limitation Act - Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) Article 14, 17. (178) P.L.R.
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Exparte award also sent through registered post but the same has also not been received by the appellant - Filed objections after about 2 years - Objection in my view, were hopelessly time barred as the applicant-appellant had been very callous and lackadaisical in filing the objection. (180) P.L.R.
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Interest - Simple interest awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal @18% per annum for post award period and @15% per annum for pre award period as against claimed compound interest (monthly) @18% per annum is lawful and correctly upheld by the Learned Single judge in accordance with the reasons as stated by the Arbitral Tribunal. (176) P.L.R. (Del.)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Learned single judge is correct in holding that merely because the awarded amount inclusive of interest constituted 66% of the contract price, will not in itself make as one the award opposed to the public policy of India. (176) P.L.R. (Del.)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 137 Cause of action arises when the real dispute arises i.e. when one party asserts and the other party denies any right - Cause of action in the present case is the claim of the claimant to the determination of base year for the purposes of escalation and the calculation made thereon, and the refusal of the appellant to pay as per the calculations. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 348
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Order passed by the Arbitrator ruling out her own jurisdiction will be an appealable order under Rule the provisions of the Arbitration Act and without the appeal being filed by the Corporation, Managing Director or any other officer has no power to annul the same - The fresh appointment made is incompetent and without jurisdiction. (182) P.L.R.
- Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order XXI, Rule 6, 11(2) – Have no relevance to the fiction of an award passed under the Arbitration Act - Order XXI, Rule 6 of the CPC , provides the manner in case a Court desires that its own decree is to be executed by another court - Manner of presentation of an application is contained in Rule 11(2) - What is sought to be disclosed under rule 11(2) is the details like the number of suits, appeal against the decree, etc., which really does not have a relevance to the fiction of an award passed under the Arbitration Act to be treated as a decree of the Court for purposes of execution. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
- Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - CPC, Section 37, 38, 39, 46 - Under section 46 (Precepts) of the CPC application of the decree holder is made to the Court which passed the decree, which issues the precepts to any other Court competent to execute the said decree - Section 37 of the CPC provides Expression “the Court which passed the decree” - In the case of an award passed under the Arbitration Act, there is no decree passed but the award itself is executed as a decree by fiction - The provisions of the said Act traverse a different path from the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, which required an award made to be filed in Court and a decree to be passed thereon whereupon it would be executable – Arbitration Act. (S.C.)(2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
- Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) - Enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings - Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 36. (S.C.)(2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial