Landmark Judgments in Arbitration by Supreme Court
Brahmani River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Limited
Although the Supreme Court based on the opinion of Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. pointed out that it did not use "exclusive jurisdiction", Words such as "only", "exclusive", and "only" are not decisive and will not produce any substantial difference.
It pointed out that when the contract specifies the jurisdiction of a court in a particular place, only that court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and the parties intend to exclude all other courts.
The Supreme Court held that in this case, the parties have agreed to use Bhubaneswar as the "place" for the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the parties intend to exclude the jurisdiction of all other courts. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Madras High Court is not entitled to exercise jurisdiction under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 1996.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited v. Canara Bank & Ors
While citing the "group company" principle, the Supreme Court allows people who have not signed an arbitration agreement to participate in the arbitration process.
The Supreme Court pointed out that if a member of the parent or holding company or group of companies is a signatory to the arbitration agreement, and a non-signatory entity within the group has participated in the negotiation, the non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement or enter into a commercial contract, or By making a statement indicating that you intend to be bound by the contract, the non-signatory will also be bound by and benefit from the corresponding contract.
In this case, the Supreme Court observed that there was sufficient factual background to show that the parties intend to restrict the participation of non-signatory parties in the arbitration proceeding.
Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain v. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Co ., Ltd.
When the Supreme Court challenged arbitrators on the grounds of possible prejudice, it held that there should be no bias towards arbitrators.
The aggrieved party opposed the independence of the arbitrator because the arbitrator had served as a lawyer for one of the parties to the dispute. This fact has also attracted the attention of the referee many times. The Supreme Court held that the injured party had reasonable prejudice against the arbitrator and his ability to make an independent and impartial award. Therefore, the award should be cancelled.
(This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, or Religion, Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code VIA Mediation and Arbitration Centre Foundation shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.)