These decisions cover a wide range of topics related to arbitration, including the validity of arbitration agreements, challenges to arbitrator appointments, enforcement of arbitral awards, interpretation of arbitration clauses, and more. The following table highlights the important cases and their key takeaways:
| Section | Case | Key Takeaways |
|---|---|---|
| Section 7 | Tata Capital Finance Ltd. v. Shri Chand Construction and Apartment Pvt. Ltd. | An arbitration clause giving one party unilateral power to abandon proceedings lacks mutuality and is invalid. An arbitration agreement cannot provide remedies of both arbitration and court proceedings for different parties’ claims. |
| Section 8 | Arun Srivastava v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. | A writ petition under Article 227 is not maintainable against an order referring parties to arbitration under Section 8. Issues related to arbitration agreement validity should be raised before the arbitral tribunal. |
| Section 9 | Arcelor Mittal Nipon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. | The bar under Section 9(3) is inoperative once the court entertains an application. |
| Quippo Infrastructure Ltd. v. A2z Infraservices Ltd. | The constitution of the tribunal includes jurisdiction assumption after proceedings commence. | |
| DLF Ltd. v. Leighton India Contractors Pvt. Ltd. | Section 9 preserves the dispute’s subject matter until the tribunal’s constitution; it doesn’t enforce specific contract performance. | |
| Section 11 | Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Ministry Of Railway | Once a Section 11 petition is filed, a party forfeits the right to make an appointment. |
| Sagar Constructions v. Govt. (NCT) of Delhi | The right to invoke arbitration cannot be restricted to a shorter period than provided by law. | |
| DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Rajapura Homes Pvt. Ltd. | Courts must ensure an arbitration agreement correlates with the dispute before appointing an arbitrator. | |
| Avantha Holdings Ltd. v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. | Courts can decline reference if the subject matter of the dispute is outside the arbitration agreement. | |
| Airone Charters Pvt. Ltd. v. JetSetGo Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. | Parties invoking arbitration cannot bifurcate claims unless the agreement allows. | |
| Sanjay Iron and Steel Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India | If an agreement mandates pre-arbitral conciliation, parties must attempt conciliation before arbitration. | |
| Jyoti Sarup Mittal v. Executive Engineer, South Delhi Municipal Corporation | The arbitration agreement remains valid even if the appointment mechanism is void. | |
| Swastik Pipe Ltd. v. Shri Ram Autotech Pvt. Ltd. | A party’s absence from a Section 11 petition can imply acceptance of arbitration agreement validity. | |
| M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board v. K.P. Dwivedi | Raising an issue before a High Court-appointed arbitrator precludes raising it under a special statute tribunal. | |
| Section 12 | BCC Developers & Promoters Ltd. v. DMRC | The mere status of arbitrators as ex-employees doesn’t make them ineligible to arbitrate. |
| Section 14 | Laxmi Continetal Construction Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh | An arbitrator’s mandate doesn’t end upon retirement, unless the agreement or law provides otherwise. |
| Section 17 | Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. | Orders by Emergency Arbitrators are within Section 17, enforceable under Section 17(2). |
| L&T Finance Ltd. v. DM South India Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. | Arbitrators decide interim measures based on prima facie cases and balance of convenience. | |
| Sanjay Arora v. Rajan Chadha | Tribunals can decide Section 17 applications even before filing Statement of Claims. | |
| Section 21 | S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Construction and Design Services, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam | Rules of arbitration don’t determine seat; it’s decided per parties’ agreement. |
| Section 24 | Narinder Singh v. Union of India | Deprivation of the right to present evidence violates natural justice. |
| Section 31 | Union of India v. Om Vajrakaya Construction Co. | Courts can award costs irrespective of parties’ agreement to the contrary. |
| Union of India v. Manraj Enterprises | Arbitrators can’t award interest if parties expressly prohibit it. | |
| NTPC Ltd. v. Afcons R.N. Shetty and Co. Pvt. Ltd JV | Arbitrators can charge separate fees for claims and counter-claims. | |
| Section 34 | National Highway Authority of India v. M. Hakeem | Courts can’t modify awards under Section 34, only affirm or set aside. |
| Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd. | Courts can’t substitute their view for the tribunal’s in award interpretation. | |
| Kanodia Infratech Ltd. v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. | Unilateral arbitrator appointment challenge must be raised early in proceedings. | |
| Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan | Facilitation Council can’t pass awards without referring parties to arbitration. | |
| Section 36 | Toyo Engineering Corp. v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. | Principles of CPC are relevant while deciding enforcement under Section 36. |
| Section 37 | Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar and Co. | High Court’s power under Section 37 is different from a First Appellate Court’s in a civil suit. |
| Augmont Gold Pvt. Ltd. v. One97 Communication Ltd. | Appellate courts won’t reassess evidence in an appeal against Section 17 order. | |
| KLA Const. Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. The Embassy of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan | Foreign states in commercial transactions can’t claim sovereign immunity. | |
| State Of Chhattisgarh v. M/s Sal Udyog Pvt. Ltd. | New challenges can be raised in appeal under Section 37, including patent illegality. | |
| Section 48 | Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. | Non-signatory’s reliance on arbitration award is maintainable in enforcement proceedings. |
| Costs | Balasore Alloys Ltd. v. Medima LLC | Indian courts can’t order foreign-seated arbitration costs. |
The judgments covered in this practice note reflect the Indian courts’ continued efforts to interpret and refine the country’s arbitration framework. As arbitration gains prominence as a preferred mode of dispute resolution, these decisions play a crucial role in shaping the landscape of arbitration law in India. Legal practitioners and stakeholders should stay updated with these developments to ensure effective navigation of arbitration proceedings and enforcement of arbitral awards.
