Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
DragonBranch
RelatedSearches
FederalCourtSystem
ArbitrationRules
International
Arbitration
HadtherebeenalacunaeintheprovisionsoftheIndianArbitrationActonthepointatissueorifitcontainedsuchprovisionswhich
is capable of 2 or more different interpretations , then of course the internal aid to the preamble to the Act could be taken for
interpretingsuchprovisionandthentherelevantprovisionsofthe said Model Law and Rules could be read so as to interpret that
provisionbecausewhileenactingtheIndianAct,thesaidModelLawandRulesweretakenintoaccount.
1999(4)RAJ365(Del)
UnionofIndiaVsEastCoastBoatBuilders&EngineersLtd
ThiscaseexploredtheeffectoftheModelLawandRules.Itwasdecidedthatitcannotbesaidthateachandeveryprovisionofthe
said Model Law and Rules forms part of the Act even though the preamble of the Act says that it is expedient to make laws
respecting Arbitration and conciliation taking into account the UNCITRAL Model law and Rules. Those Model law and Rules were
takenintoaccountwhiledraftingandenactingtheActbutwhateverhasbeenenactedisthelawonarbitrationenforceableinIndia.
HadtherebeenalacunaeintheprovisionsoftheIndianArbitrationActonthepointatissueorifitcontainedsuchprovisionswhich
is capable of 2 or more different interpretations , then of course the internal aid to the preamble to the Act could be taken for
interpretingsuchprovisionandthentherelevantprovisionsofthe said Model Law and Rules could be read so as to interpret that
provisionbecausewhileenactingtheIndianAct,thesaidModelLawandRulesweretakenintoaccount.
UnitedStatesCourts
MediationAnd
2001(2)RAJ1(SC)
FuerstDayLawsonLtdVsJindalExportsLtd.
Arbitration
Thiscaseclarifiedthatanordinanceoperatesinthefielditoccupies,withthesameeffectandforceasanAct.
CriminalCourt
FiduciaryDuty
ArbitrationProcess
The first Ordinance came into force on 25.1.1996 and the Act came into force on 22.8.1996. It was held that the Act came into
forceincontinuationofthefirstOrdinanceandthismakesthepositionclearthatalthoughtheActcameintoforceon22.8.1996,for
all practical and legal purposes, it shall be deemed to have been effective from 25.1.1996, particularly when the provisions of the
Ordinance and the Act are similar and there is nothing in the Act to the contrary so as to make the Ordinance ineffective as to
eitheritscomingintoforceon25.1.1996oritscontinuationupto22.8.1996.
1/9
5/10/2015
INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
agreement
2001(4)RAJ660(Del)
Pyrites,PhosphateandChemicalsVsExcelShippingEnterprises
Therewasanagreementbetweenthepartieswhichwasrenewed.Theoriginalagreementcontainedanarbitrationclause, however,
there was no signature by or on behalf of the petitioner company the signatures belonged to two employees of the petitioner,
withouttherebeingaresolutionintheirbehalftosignonbehalfofthepetitionercompany.Theyhadsignedaswitnesses.
Thepetitionerurgedthatsincethe2personswereemployeesofthepetitioner,itcouldbetakenthattheysignedforandonbehalf
ofthepetitioner.
Itwasheldthatmerelybecausetheywereemployeesofthepetitionerwouldnotgivethemthestatustosay that they signed for
andonbehalfofthepetitioner.Theyhadnotsignedonthebasisofanyresolutionofthepetitionersoastopermitthecourttohold
thattheyhadsignedonbehalfofthepetitioner.Theyhadsignedaswitnessesandtheirstatuswouldremaintobethatofawitness,
rather than a party. The difference of signing as a witness and signing for and on behalf of the company is like the difference
betweenchalkandcheese.
http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment.htm
2/9
5/10/2015
INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
partysetsinmotionseveralperiodsoflimitation,thereforeitisanimportantstageinthearbitralproceedings.
Thecourtheldthatinthepresentcase,theCEhadsignedtheagreementonbehalfoftheRailways.Inthearbitralproceedings,he
representedtheorganizationandnoticeswereservedonhim.EventheawardclearlymentionedthattheRailwaysisrepresentedby
DY. CE/Gauge Conversion, Chennai. The subject matter of arbitration related to the department of the CE. Therefore, the High
CourthaderredinitsdecisionandtheClaimant'sapplicationforsettingasidetheawardisallowed.
3/9
5/10/2015
INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
2001(57)DRJ154(DB)
BHELVsCNGarg&Ors.
ThescopeofSection5cameupforconsiderationinthiscaseandthecourtheldthattheschemeofthenew Act has done away
with court interference during arbitration proceedings. The new Act deals with situations even when there is a challenge to the
constitutionofthearbitraltribunalitislefttothearbitratortodecidethesame.If the challenge is unsuccessful, the tribunal may
continuetheproceedingsandpassanaward.Suchachallengetotheconstitutionofthetribunal before the court is then deferred
and it could be only after the arbitral award is made that the party challenging the arbitrator may make an application for setting
asidetheawardanditcantakethegroundofconstitutionofthetribunalwhilechallengingtheaward.
ThecourtfurtherdrewtheconclusionthatSection5wasinsertedtodiscouragejudicialintervention.Itisseenthatapartyhaving
grievancesagainstanarbitratoronaccountofbiasorprejudiceisnotwithoutremedy.Itonlyhastowaittilltheawardismadeand
thenitcanchallengetheawardonvariousgroundsunderSection34.
http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment.htm
4/9
5/10/2015
INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment.htm
5/9
5/10/2015
INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
of the counter by the petitioner points to the petitioner subjecting itself to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and accordingly,
dismissaloftheapplicationunderSection8isinaccordancewithlaw.
2002(2)RAJ313(Del)
TransWorldFinance&RealEstateCoPvtLtdVs.UnionofIndia
Thiscaseconsideredtheeffectandscopeofadisputearisingoutofaninvalidleasedeed.Thecounselforthepetitionerurgedthat
lease deed was unstamped and unregistered and therefore the arbitration agreement contained therein did not constitute a valid
arbitrationagreement.
The court held that it was a well established proposition of law that even if the said agreement entered into between the parties
couldnotbetreatedasavalidleaseagreementforlackofregistration,it could certainly be looked into for the collateral purpose.
Existenceofanarbitrationagreementorotherwiseisonesuchpurposeforwhichsuchanagreementcanbelookedintoandrelied
upon.
http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment.htm
6/9
5/10/2015
INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
Section 9 - Scope
AIR1999(SC)565
SundaramFinanceLtdVsNEPCIndiaLtd
ThiscasediscussedthesimilaritybetweenSection9ofthe1996ActandArticle9ofUNCITRALModelLawwhichstatesthat"Itis
notincompatiblewith an arbitration agreement for a party to request, before or during arbitral proceedings, from a court an interim
measureofprotectionandforacourttograntsuchmeasure"
http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment.htm
7/9
5/10/2015
INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
Article9seekstoclarifythatmerelybecauseapartytoanarbitrationagreementrequeststhecourtforaninterimmeasure"before
or during arbitration proceedings", such recourse would not be regarded as being incompatible with an arbitration agreement.
Arbitrationmaycommenceandcontinuenotwithstandingapartyhavingapproachedthecourtforinterimprotection.
Theexpression"beforeorduringarbitrationproceedings"usedinSection9seemstohavebeeninsertedwithaviewtogiveitthe
samemeaningasthosewordsinArticle9ofUNCITRALModelLaw.
8/9
5/10/2015
INDIANCOUNCILOFARBITRATION
2004(1)Arb.LR396(SC)
NationalAluminumCoLtdVs.GeraldMetalsSA
Apendingdisputebetweenthepartieswasbeingsettledthrougharbitration,duringwhichGeraldMetalsSA(Gerald)movedthetrial
courtundersection9(d)ofthe1996ActandobtainedaninterimorderfromthetrialcourtinfaceofoppositionbyNationalAluminum
CompanyLimited(NALCO)
AppealwasfiledbyNALCOagainsttheaboveorder.TheCourtrejectedtheappealbutmadesomemodificationstotheorderofthe
trialcourt.NALCOappealedtoSupremeCourt(SC)andSCpreferrednottogointoquestionsoffactandlawraisedinthe appeal
and decided the matter on grounds of equity and balance of convenience because the matter was yet to be decided by the
arbitrators.ItwasobservedthatifGeraldisnotpermittedtoliftthegoodsinquestionitislikelytobeputtogreathardshipandon
theotherhandifNALCOisnotpermittedtocollectthefairpriceofitsgoodsitwillbedeprivedofthemonetaryvalueofthegoods.
SCalsodeclaredthattheorderwasnotanyopiniononthelegalargumentsraisednoronthefactualissuesexcepttotheextentof
theinterimarrangementmade.
2004(1)Arb.L.R.141(SC)
AshokTradersandAnr..Vs.GurumukhDasSalujaandOrs
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the right conferred by Section 9 of the 1996 Act arose from contract. In brief,
therewasadisputeamongapartnershipengagedinliquortrade.Whenoneofthepartnersfiledasuititwasheld not maintainable
underSection69(3)ofIndianPartnershipAct,1963ashisnamedidnotappearintheregisteroffirmsasapartner.There was an
arbitration clause in the partnership deed and an application was filed under section 9 of the 1996 Act which was contested on
various grounds, the plea of nonmaintainability prevailed with the Additional District Judge. However the High Court held that
applicabilityofsection69(3)ofIndianPartnershipAct,1963isnotattractedtoanapplicationundersection9of1996Act.
When the matter finally came up before Supreme Court it was held that under 1996 Act the arbitration clause is independent and
separablefromthepartnershipdeed. The only qualification is that a person invoking section 9 should be a 'party' to an arbitration
agreement,asthereliefbeingsoughtundersection9of1996Actisneitherinasuitnorarightarisingfromthecontract.The court
undersection9isonlyformulatinginterimmeasuressoastoprotecttheright,underadjudicationbeforetheArbitralTribunal,from
beingfrustrated.Itwasheldthatsection69ofthePartnershipActhasnobearingontherightofapartytoanarbitrationclauseto
fileanapplicationunderSection9ofthe1996Act.
http://www.icaindia.co.in/icanet/judgment.htm
9/9