Topic
An arbitral tribunal in India is a private panel appointed to resolve disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without court intervention.
The Delhi HC held that arbitrator recusal creates a vacancy to be filled under Section 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, not a termination attracting Section 32 remedies. This distinction allows parties to seek appointment of a substitute arbitrator rather than challenging a termination order, preserving the arbitration process.
Bombay High Court rules that once an arbitral tribunal is constituted, courts lose jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judgment directs release of surplus funds to the developer and bars third-party interim relief claims, reinforcing the primacy of arbitral tribunals in contractual disputes.
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which stays parallel suits, does not apply to arbitration proceedings, reinforcing the autonomy of arbitral tribunals. It further held that Article 227 jurisdiction can only be invoked when an arbitral order is so perverse that its illegality is immediately apparent, setting a high bar for judicial interference in arbitration.
Meghalaya High Court rules that contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act are maintainable for arbitral order violations even without a formal tribunal reference, provided the aggrieved party files a petition and the tribunal acknowledges the breach. This expands enforcement avenues for parties in arbitration disputes where tribunals lack contempt powers.
Bombay High Court sets aside an arbitration award that denied redevelopment compensation based on equity, ruling that arbitrators under Section 28(2) of the Arbitration Act must adhere strictly to express contract terms. The court reinstated the petitioners' entitlement to corpus fund and monthly displacement compensation from March 2018, reinforcing the primacy of contractual clauses over equitable considerations in arbitration.
Madras High Court holds that termination of contract after expiry of extended time is legally void; forfeiture of deposits invalid without subsisting contract.
Bombay High Court sets aside arbitration award directing refund of brokerage for authorized trades, reaffirming that regulatory lapses don't justify equitable compensation.
Supreme Court holds that only the Principal Civil Court or High Court with ordinary original jurisdiction can extend arbitral timelines under Section 29A, regardless of who appointed the arbitrator.