Page 5 - Arbitration

Govt entities can pay contractors in challenge against arbitration awards

The measures approved would help in ensuring that remedies of challenge/appeal are resorted to in judicious manner, and in furthering objective of infusion of liquidity into the construction sector

Increasing hurdles: Arbitration claims against NHAI on the rise

The NHAI's latest available annual report, for FY18, shows the authority had 1,014 cases of arbitration

From arbitration to property tax, a weekly selection of key court orders

When the parties to a dispute specify a time frame by which the arbitration must conclude, it cannot be extended without the consent of the same parties

Govt starts talks on using services of private third party arbitrators

Move aimed at cutting legal costs, improving ease of doing business rankings

Brief case: Ineligible person cannot name arbitrator

A weekly selection of key court orders

Govt sets up committee to recommend ways to make arbitration more efficient

The committee will be headed by retired Supreme Court judge B N Srikrishna

Two Indian firms may conduct arbitration outside country: SC

UMPP has a dispute over certain clauses of agreement executed between it and NACCIPL

Time frame for completing arbitration

Though the law sets a time limit for the arbitrator to pass an award, the period could be extended in one exceptional case, - when both parties consent to do so, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment in Electrical Manufacturing Co vs Power Grid Corporation. If there is no consensus, the arbitrator must complete the proceedings within the time frame. In this case, the time was not kept after disputes arose between Electrical Manufacturing and NTPC over payment for a contract to execute the Rihand-Kanpur transmission line. The company approached NTPC and other authorities, but to no avail. So, it invoked the arbitration clause and appointed its nominee. However, NTPC failed to name its arbitrator. The company got the Institution of Engineers (India) to appoint the other two arbitrators. The arbitration went ahead, despite protests by NTPC (now Power Grid Corporation), and the award was passed in the company's favour. When Electrical Manufacturing approached the Delhi High Court for ex

Bombay HC recalls arbitration order

If one of the companies in an arbitration case is incorporated outside India, the chief justice of a high court has no power to appoint an arbitrator even if the parties agree to arbitration and name arbitrators. This power belongs only to the Chief Justice of India or his designate as it is an "international commercial arbitration" under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The high court can initiate arbitration only in disputes between domestic parties. Moreover, before naming an arbitrator, the high court chief justice or his designate is bound to verify whether he has jurisdiction in the matter. This clarification to the Arbitration Act came last week in the case, Roptonal Ltd vs Aneez Bazmee. The Bombay High Court, after pointing out the error in law made by it earlier, recalled its 2014 judgment and allowed the petition of the company which is incorporated in Cyprus. None of the parties brought this principle to the notice of the chief justice's designate, nor did they object t

Double-edged sword for London's arbitration crown

Brussels Regulation and Rome Convention I and II will not apply to the UK

SC lifts corporate veil on share deals

The Supreme Court lifted the corporate veil and upheld the cancellation of plot for an information technology campus because a Singapore company, the allottee, transferred the plot to a Dubai company without approval. In this case, Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh vs Esys Information Technologies Ltd, the plot was allotted for running an institution. However, the Singapore firm transferred its shares to a Dubai firm, Esys Global Holdings. There was another disputed transfer of shares to a Chennai firm. The estate officer asked the allottee company about the share transactions and nature of the business. He did not get a satisfactory answer. Therefore, he threatened to take back the land. The company moved the high court. It stayed the take-over. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court order. It stated that the company had concealed facts about the share transfers and not come to the court with "clean hands". There was a sale, not mere transfer of shares. The judgement emphas

Time limit in arbitration will help speedy disposal: ex-justice Mudgal

New bill stipulates arbitral tribunal is required to render an award within 12 months from date of appointment of arbitrators