Você está na página 1de 4

Container Corporation Of India vs D.R.

Sood Of Sood And Sood

Case Note:
Arbitration - Appointment - Order passed by learned Single Judge under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration Act appointing justice a former Judge of present Court
as an arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and counter-claims of the parties -
Held, in present case, it was not covered by Clause 64(3)(a)(i), the arbitral
Tribunal should consist of a panel of three Gazetted Railways Officers not below
JA grade, as the arbitrators - Present clause provided for the appointment of
three arbitrators and therefore, any adjudication of claims and disputes would
have to be conducted by three arbitrators as per present clause - If the
designated authority had inadvertently or otherwise missed out on the
appointment of the other two arbitrators, it had not acted in conformity with
the Arbitration clause - Petition disposed of.

Executive Engineer Sardar vs Bhaven Construction And Anr.

Civil - Appointment - Whether order passed by sole Arbitrator appointed by

opponent was justified or not - Held, in present case, Appellant denied that in
view of Clause 38, wherein it was provided that, 'provision of Arbitration Act,
1940 and any statutory modification thereof would be applicable', Respondent
could not appoint Sole Arbitrator and could not contend that now that
Arbitrator was already appointed and he (the Arbitrator) had already exercised
power under provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Petitioner had
to wait till arbitration award was passed, to challenge same under Section 34
and Section 37 of 1996 Act - Appeal allowed.

Hope plantation ltd vs Tahik Land Board Peermade & Anr

the question of exclusion of 'fuel area' and 'rested area' from the plantation which is
otherwise exempt from the limitation of "ceiling area" under the provisions of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). Present appellant had purchased
the estate mainly of tea plantation from South India Tea Estate Company Ltd. which
was the respondent in the earlier appeal in this Court. (CA 227/78). This was the second

Indowind energy Ltd vs Wescare

“In the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, no claim

against any party or no dispute thereon can be the subject-matter of reference
to an Arbitrator”

“Company not a party to a contract containing an arbitration agreement, unless

the agreement containing an arbitration clause was signed with reference to its
subsequent conduct or until the ratification, approval, adoption or confirmation
of the agreement was done by it”
“Power of Courts under Section 11(6) restricted to the determination of
existence of arbitration agreement between the parties and not extended to
ascertainment of the rights and obligations regarding performance of such
contract between the parties.”

The issue was regarding the third party impleadment in the agreement between
Indowind and subuthi, the other respondent.

Shree Ram mills Ltd vs Utility premises (P) Ltd

An order under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter
called as "the Act" for short) appointing Arbitrators, passed by the Designate Judge of
the Bombay High Court is questioned in this appeal at the instance
of Shree Ram Mills Ltd. (hereinafter called "the petitioner"). The said order is assailed
mainly on two grounds, firstly, that there was no live issue in existence in between the
parties and the learned Judge erred in holding that there was a live issue in between the
parties and secondly that the claim had become barred by limitation between the
parties. As against this the respondents M/s. Utility Premises (P) Ltd., supported the
order and pointed out that in pursuance of the order passed not only had the Arbitrator
been appointed but they had also chosen the third Arbitrator to preside over the Arbitral
Tribunal and the Arbitral Tribunal had commenced its proceedings. Presently the
proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal are stayed. It has, therefore, to be decided as to
whether the order passed under Section 11(6) of the Act appointing the Arbitrators is
good order in law particularly in the wake of the above two objections.

Ratio Decidendi:
"Where the Chief Justice comes to a finding that there exists a live issue, then
this finding would include a finding that the respective claims of the parties
have not become barred by limitation."

Chloro controls vs severn trent water purification

Whether, in case where multiple agreements were signed between different

parties and where some contain arbitration clause then reference could be
made to arbitral tribunal

S.N.Prasad,M/S Hitek ... vs M/S Monnet Finance Ltd.& Ors

Loan agreement: Whether guarantor for loan, who was not party to loan
agreement containing arbitration agreement executed between lender and
borrower, could be made party to reference to arbitration in regard to a dispute
relating to repayment of such loan and subjected to arbitration award
2nd issue:

McDermott Interntional Inc vs Burn Standard co Ltd

Arbitration - partial award - Section 34 of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940
appellant and respondent entered into contract - dispute arose between
appellant and respondent - arbitration clause invoked - two arbitrator
appointed for determination and disputes between parties - arbitrator made
partial award - respondent contended that arbitrator had no jurisdiction to
make partial award - partial award is subject matter of challenge under
Section 34.
(ii) Additional Award - Section 33 (4) of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 -
whether additional award valid - Section 33 (4) empowers Arbitral Tribunal
to make additional awards in respect of claims already presented to Tribunal
- held, additional award not vitiated in law.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs M/S.Saibaba Automobiles

Single Judge held that there was some communication gap on issue, thus
award had set aside and proceeding had been remitted back to sole Arbitrator –

Hence, this Appeal - Whether Single Judge was wholly in error in setting aside
arbitral award and remand proceeding back to arbitral Tribunal –

Held, as per Section 34 of Act, arbitral award can be set aside on ground that
award was in conflict with public policy - Sole Arbitrator held that there was
failure on part of Respondent to prove documents such as bills, invoices,
delivery challans or any other writings in support of its claim - Respondent was
found to have filed tabular statement without any supported document in
support of case - No ground for interference under Section 34 of Act was made
out –

Further Single Judge had exercised jurisdiction under Section 34 of Act on basis
that there was communication gap during course of arbitral proceedings - That
was absolutely no reason or justification to enlarge scope of interference in
respect of arbitral award in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of Act –

Thus interference of Single Judge in arbitral award under Section 34 of Act was
not warranted - Hence Single Judge order remanded back proceedings was set
aside - Appeal allowed.


he Respondent was a dealer of the Appellant in pursuance of a dealership agreement

dated 20 April 1992. On 9 May 2003, the retail outlet was raided by the district
administration/police authorities during the course of which a tanker which was
unloading an unidentified product into the MS tank was seized. A case was filed under
the Essential Commodities Act and a notice to show cause was issued on 14 May 2003
why action should not be initiated. By a letter dated 26 May 2003, the Respondent
admitted that its manager had conspired with unauthorized persons and had arranged to
put solvent into motor spirit. On 7 June 2003, finding the reply to be unsatisfactory, the
retail outlet of the Respondent was closed for thirty days and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-
was imposed. The activity of sales at the retail outlet recommenced on 7 September
2003, but following a show cause notice issued by the district administration for the
closure of the outlet, sales were suspended on 22 November 2003. On 14 June 2004, the
State Government ordered resumption of supplies. On 1 July 2004, a notice to show
cause was issued to the Respondent why action should not be initiated for violating the
dealership agreement on the allegation that a partnership had been entered into without
the prior permission of the Appellant. Moreover, it is alleged that the original allottee of
the petrol pump was in the employment of Nanded Municipal Corporation. A notice to
show cause was issued on 14 January 2005 why action including termination should not
be taken against the Respondent. The Respondent submitted a reply. The dealership was
terminated on 24 February 2005.