Latest news with #ArbitrationandConciliationAct1996
Business Standard
19-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Intimation Of Receipt Of Arbitration Award
In continuation to our letter dated 11th April 2025 wherein we had intimated about the Court Order received in favour of Ceigall India Limited issued by the Honble Additional District Judge Chandigarh under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 dated 9th April 2025 in the matter of Ceigall India Limited vs. Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited (PSIEC) we wish to submit that: We have received an award amount of ?31750655/- (Rupees Three Crore Seventeen Lakh fifty Thousand six hundred fifty-five only) including applicable interest on 19th May 2025.
Time of India
02-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SC asks Ministry of Law and Justice to take a serious look at the arbitration regime prevailing in India
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Friday called on the Ministry of Law and Justice to take a serious look at the arbitration regime prevailing in India and bring about necessary changes while the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill 2024 is still being said that it is indeed very 'sad' to note that even after so many years, procedural issues with regard to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, have continued to plague the arbitration regime of expressing strong disapproval over the continued absence of statutory clarity on the power of arbitral tribunals to implead non-signatories to the arbitration agreements, it said what is expressly missing in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is still missing in the 2024 Bill, despite a catena of decisions by the apex court and various high courts, a Bench comprising a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said."Unfortunately, even the new Bill has taken no steps whatsoever, for ameliorating the position of law as regards the power of impleadment or joinder of an arbitral tribunal,' it said while highlighting the need for statutory recognition of such power in order to obviate all possibilities of confusion.'The court noted the Arbitration Act was the first legislative enactment that dealt with arbitration that came into force in years, later, this legislation was replaced by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It has been almost, thirty-years, since the Act, 1996 has remained in force. Various amendments to the Act, 1996 have been made over the years so as to ensure that arbitration proceedings are conducted and concluded expeditiously.'For arbitration to remain a viable and effectively alternative mechanism for dispute resolution, it is imperative to ensure that commercial reality does not outgrow this mechanism. The mechanisms of arbitration must be sufficiently elastic to accommodate the complexities of multi-party and multi-contract arrangements without compromising foundational principles such as consent and party autonomy," the bench approach of courts and arbitral tribunal in particular must be responsive to the emerging commercial practices and expectations of the parties who submit themselves to it, the bench observations were made in a judgment which dismissed a party's appeal to implead it as a party in the arbitral proceedings despite it being a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement.
Time of India
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Courts in India have limited powers to modify arbitral awards, says SC
In a significant ruling, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a 4:1 majority judgment held that the courts in India have only limited powers to modify arbitral awards. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack A Chinese shadow falls on Pahalgam terror attack case probe How India can use water to pressure Pakistan Buzzkill: How India can dissolve the Pakistan problem, not just swat it Such power may be exercised under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 only when the award is severable, by severing the 'invalid' portion from the 'valid' portion, and by correcting any clerical, computational or typographical errors which appear erroneous in the award, a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna said. An arbitral award is severable when it addresses multiple, distinct claims, and a part of the award is found to be invalid or illegal while the remaining parts are valid and enforceable. In essence, courts can then uphold the valid portions while setting aside the invalid ones. The Constitution bench also said the court can modify the post award interest on arbitral awards in some circumstances and this power should be exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution with great care and caution. 'We recognise that the legal controversy carries significant implications. The arguments canvassed symbolise the longstanding conflict between equity and justice, on the one hand, and the fetters imposed by the court's jurisdictional limits, on the other,' the majority judgement by the CJI stated. Justices B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, and Augustine George Masih also concurred with the CJI. 'To deny courts the authority to modify an award—particularly when such a denial would impose significant hardships, escalate costs, and lead to unnecessary delays—would defeat the raison d'être of arbitration. This concern is particularly pronounced in India, where applications under Section 34 and appeals under Section 37 often take years to resolve," the bench said. The authority to set aside an arbitral award necessarily encompasses the power to set it aside in part, rather than in its entirety, the court said. "This interpretation is practical and pragmatic. It would be incongruous to hold that power to set aside would only mean power to set aside the award in its entirety and not in part. A contrary interpretation would not only be inconsistent with the statutory framework but may also result in valid determinations being unnecessarily nullified," the bench said. In his dissenting opinion, Justice K.V. Viswanathan said the top court cannot use Article 142 to modify arbitral awards. He held that courts cannot modify arbitral awards as that would hit the core aspect of arbitration. On the issue of post-award interest, too, Justice Viswanathan said the issue ought to be referred back to arbitration. The majority judgment said if it were to be decided that courts can only set aside and not modify awards, then the parties would be compelled to undergo an extra round of arbitration, adding to the previous four stages: the initial arbitration, Section 34 (setting aside proceedings), Section 37 (appeal proceedings), and Article 136 (SLP proceedings). "In effect, this interpretation would force the parties into a new arbitration process merely to affirm a decision that could easily be arrived at by the court. This would render the arbitration process more cumbersome than even traditional litigation," the court said. In 2024, a three-judge bench of the top court had referred the issue to a five-judge Constitution bench after having contrary opinions in the previous rulings.
