Dheeraj Kumar
“Arbitration is termed as a power mode of ADR because it lowers the pressure on the court and is cost-effective. Arbitration must have gazed upwards with all earnestness so the public has confidence in the quick procedure of resolving their matter through this mode.” -State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Dev Dutt Pandit, AIR 1999 SC 3196.
Case 1: Olympus Super Structures Pvt. Ltd. V. Meena Vijay Khetan, AIR 1999 SC 2102
Issues raised:
- Wheather question concerning the jurisdiction of Arbitration and scope of reference to Arbitration under section 16 of the Act, 1996, can be put subsequent level when the award is challenged under section 34.
- Whether conflict-related to the performance of the contract can refer to arbitration.
Court held that the right to specific performance deals with contractual rights and it is open to the parties to agree to refer the issues relating to specific performance to arbitration. There is no prohibition in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that issues relating to specific performance of a contract relating to immovable property cannot be referred to arbitration. Nor is there such a prohibition in the Act of 1996.
Case 2: P. Gajapathi Raju and Other V. P.V.G Raju and Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 539
Issues raised: Can an Arbitration Agreement be entered into after a suit is filed?
Court held that the phrase “which is the subject of an arbitration agreement” does not, in the context, necessarily require that the agreement must be already in existence before the action is brought in the court. The phrase also connotes an arbitration agreement is brought into existence while the action is pending.
If, parties in conflict entered into Arbitration Agreement during the pendency of the suit in court and agrees to take their matter to the arbitrator. The party who wants to take the matter in front of an arbitrator appeal to the court after submission of the statement and the other party does not object. As per Section 8.
Case 3: Cheran Property Ltd. V. Kasturi & Son’s Ltd. And Ors., 2018 SC
Issues raised: Whether a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement is bound by the same or not.
Facts of the case: In this, matter KCP, KSL, SPIL, and a company Hindcorp Resorts Pvt. Ltd. was entered into an arbitration agreement. Afterward, a conflict arose between the parties. Under which award, a course was given to KCP and SPIL where they have to restore the documents of title and Ksl have to compensate the measure of Rs. 3,58,11,000 alongside with the interest rate of 12% p.a. . Following, KCP challenged the award of the respective tribunal under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 on the basis that the award couldn’t be executed in favor of the non-appealing party.
Court held that the mandate to have a written agreement is to exclude the jurisdiction of national courts. Where parties have agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration, they seek to substitute a private forum for dispute resolution in place of the adjudicatory institutions constituted by the state.
Case 4: Kandla Export Corporation & Anr. V. M/s OCI Corporation & Anr., 2018 SC.
Issued raised: Whether an appeal, not maintainable under Section 50 of the Act, 1996 is nonetheless maintainable under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division, and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015.
Facts: In this, matter the appeal was recorded under the Commercial Court Act, which excused that the Commercial Courts Act didn’t give any extra right of appeal which isn’t generally accessible to the Appellants under the sections of the Arbitration Act. Besides, the fact that Section 50 of the Act,1996 just accommodated an appeal if a request to authorize enforcement of a foreign award was dismissed, the High Court held, in view the administrative policy of the Act, 1996.
Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained Code on all matters of arbitration, which would exclude the applicability of the general law contained in Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.
