Arbitration - Judgments
Arbitration - Judgments
U.P Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. (U.P State Construction Corporation) v. Indure
Pvt Ltd
- appointment of arbitrator and subsequent challenge to the arbitration
proceedings is valid, the party is not estopped from challenging the existence of
agreement.
Page 1 of 7
Section 2 (1) (f)- International Commercial Arbitration & Seat of
Arbitration
Pre BALCO:
Post BALCO:
Page 2 of 7
Section 8 - Power of Judicial Authority to refer the case to Arbitration
Page 3 of 7
the Act of “expediting the arbitration process with minimum judicial
intervention”.
- The last category of issues which the Chief Justice should not decide included
issues of “(i) Whether a claim made falls within the arbitration clause (as for
example, a matter which is reserved for final decision of a departmental
authority and excepted or excluded from arbitration)” or “(ii) Merits or any claim
involved in the arbitration.”
Page 4 of 7
(refer to book)
Before: Appointment of Arbitrator by the SC/ HC’s is an Administrative Act
Page 5 of 7
of the arbitration clause. It will be appropriate to leave that question to
be decided by the arbitral tribunal on taking evidence, along with the
merits of the claims involved in the arbitration. The Chief Justice has to
decide whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for appointing an
arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act…”
Chloro Controls Pvt Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purifier Company (2013) 1
SCC 641
- A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court said that “it is only for the purpose of
finding out whether the arbitral procedure has to be started that the Chief Justice
has to record satisfaction that there remains a live issue in between the parties.
- … The Chief Justice only has to record his satisfaction that prima facie the issue
has not become dead by the lapse of time or that any party to the agreement has
not slept over its rights beyond the time permitted by law to agitate those issues
covered by the agreement….”
- Thus, “…the Chief Justice may not decide certain issues finally and upon
recording satisfaction that prima facie the issue has not become dead even leave
it for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide.”
- The Court also upheld the categorisation laid down in Boghara Polyfab Private
Limited: “We have no reason to differ with the classification carved out in National
Insurance Co. as it is very much in conformity with the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in SBP.”
Page 6 of 7
Page 7 of 7