Certain important and recent case laws in this area are set out below.

Cases

Dolphin Drilling Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

In the present case the issue before the SC was whether an arbitration clause in a contract is a one-time recourse available to the parties to the contract or whether the parties can invoke the arbitration clause repeatedly for different disputes. The respondent raised an objection with regard to the repeated invocation of the arbitration clause on the ground that the financial burden cast by the arbitration proceedings was quite onerous. The SC while considering the said question in the facts of the case answered the question in negative

Antidumping Duties

1.     Anti-dumping duty has been levied on plastic processing or injection moulding machine, also known as injection presses having clamping force not less than 40 tonnes originating in or exported from People’s Republic of China.

Case Laws

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Uzi Justman v. Telephone Cables Ltd. and Anr.

The issue for consideration before the Delhi HC in this case was whether application under Section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (“SICA”), 1985 for suspension/stay of proceedings acts as a bar for execution of an arbitral award and for recovery of dues.

Case Laws 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

The issue for discussion before the SC in this case was whether an Arbitrator could award interest from the date of the cause of action till the date of the arbitral award contrary to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement.  

Certain important and recent case laws in this area are set out below. Case Laws Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Citation Infowares Limited v. Equinox Corporation

Equinox Corporation (“Equinox”) was registered under the laws of United States of America and carried on business in Gurgaon, Haryana through its subsidiary. Equinox entered into an outsourcing agreement (“Agreement”) with the Citation Infowares Limited (“CIL”) in Kolkata wherein the latter was engaged as a service provider for three years. The obligations under the contract were to be completed in India. The parties chose the laws of California as the governing law for interpretation of the Agreement and the disputes related to the subject matter were to be referred to arbitration.

Case Laws

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

M/s Standard Corrosion Controls Pvt Ltd v. Sarku Engineering Services SDN BHD SC analyzed whether the parties could approach a court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (“Arbitration Act”) inspite of having agreed earlier on a different procedure for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(2) of the Arbitration Act.  The parties, in this case, had agreed to settle their disputes by mutual consultation and consent, failing which, by the process of arbitration. It was specifically provided that the arbitration shall be held by applying the Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) by a single arbitrator. The petitioner/applicant, instead of submitting a request to the ICC Secretariat for appointing an arbitrator, rushed to the court for appointment of an arbitrator through an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act.  The applicant urged that since the laws of India had been made applicable under the Agreement, the provisions of the Arbitration Act in as much as the arbitrator shall be appointed through a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act. Rejecting the arguments of the petitioner/ applicant, the apex court held that such an application/ petition, without having approached the authority nominated and agreed upon by the parties, is not maintainable. The court further observed that the scheme of the Arbitration Act is that under Section 11(2), the parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing an arbitrator subject to the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. Thus, where the parties have agreed upon a specific procedure for appointment of an arbitrator, a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act to the court for appointment of an arbitrator, would not be maintainable.

Case Laws Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  M/s Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department  The SC analyzed whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) would be applicable to an application submitted under Arbitration Act for setting aside the award made by the arbitrator.

Arbitration

The Empire Jute Company Ltd. and Ors. v. The Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (“Corporation”) and Anr.GOI conferred power on the Jute Commissioner (“JC”) under section 3 of the Essentials Commodities Act, 1955, to regulate the stock of raw jute, fix price and control production, in exercise of the said power JC issued Production Control Orders (“PCO”) to various jute mill owners including the appellant directing them to manufacture bags of specified quality upon compulsory purchase of raw jute from Corporation. Any non-compliance of the PCO would attract penal provisions. A dispute arose between parties and the Division Bench of the High Court directed the parties to settle dispute through arbitration clause as per the agreement. On appeal, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the High Court took recourse to the arbitration clause stipulated in the agreement in regard to one of the question raised by the appellant but proceeded to determine the another part of the dispute raised by the appellant by itself and held that a superior court’s power of judicial review has wide amplitude but the same should not be exercised when there exists an arbitration clause. In case, the court was of the opinion that the dispute between the parties being covered by arbitration clause should be referred only to arbitration it should not have proceeded to determine a part of the dispute itself. Held, all the disputes should be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration clause stipulated in the agreement.

Case Laws

Arbitration

 Adhunik Steels Ltd.  v. Orissa Manganese &  Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The SC examined the power of the court approached under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), for interim relief or interim protection and the applicability of substantive law relating to interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The SC held that though the intention behind section 9 of the Arbitration Act is the issuance of an order for protection, preservation and interim custody of the subject matter of the arbitration agreement, the grant of an interim prohibitory injunction or an interim mandatory injunction are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The SC ruled that it is not possible to keep out the concept of balance of convenience, prima facie case, irreparable injury, the concept of just and convenient and the applicability of substantive law, while passing interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The power of the court therefore, under section 9 of the Arbitration Act is not totally independent of the well known principles governing the grant of an interim injunction that generally govern the courts in this connection.

The respondent issued a tender for purchase of oil. The appellant offered to supply different categories of oil, vide the quotation; which offer was accepted by the respondent. The appellant failed to supply the oil as per the delivery schedule even after the extension of time. The contract was finally cancelled and the appellant resorted to force majeure clause. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator, who gave a non-speaking award, which was made a rule by the order of the Delhi High Court. The appellant filed a special leave petition against the impugned judgment.

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Tiwari Road Lines

The appellant had entered into a transport contract with the respondent. The contract provided for settling the disputes in terms of the Rules of Indian Council of Arbitration (“ICA”).

Certain important and recent case laws in this area are set out below.

Arbitration

B.S.N.L. Vs Subash Chandra Kanchan [JT 2006(12) SC 25]

The contract between the appellant and the respondent provided for the appointment of arbitrator by the Managing Director of the appellant.

 Sanjeev Sharma Vs Gurdeep Singh

Disputes arose over the purchase of house property between the parties. The petitioners filed application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Arbitration Act') and obtained a conditional interim injunction that they should take steps to commence arbitral proceedings. Since the petitioners failed to comply with the condition the injunction order was vacated.

The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006

The Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Act, 2006 received the President’s assent on March 17, 2006 and was notified in the Gazette. This legislation would ensure that no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that contempt is of such nature that it substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due process of justice. In addition, the court may permit, in any proceeding for contempt of court, justification by truth as a valid defence if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest and the request for invoking the defence is bona fide.

Seth Dua & Associates, Solicitors & Advocates, India

Case Laws - Dresser Rand SA Vs Bindal Agro Chem Ltd

Certain important and recent legal developments in this segment (including policy changes, and legislative amendments, as the case may be) are set out below

Certain important and recent case law development in this practice area is set out below.

Certain important and recent legal developments in this segment (including policy changes, and legislative amendments, as the case may be) are set out below

Certain important and recent case law development in this practice area is set out below.

Certain important and recent development in this area is set out below.