Supreme Court: New grounds containing new material/facts could not have been introduced for the first time in an appeal when admittedly these grounds were not originally raised in the arbitration petition for setting aside the award

The question then arises, whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court committed any error in rejecting the appellant's application for addition of new grounds in the memorandum of arbitration appeal. As noticed above, in the application for setting aside the award, appellant set up only five grounds viz., waiver, acquiescence, delay, laches and res judicata. The grounds sought to be added in the memorandum of arbitration appeal by way of amendment are absolutely new grounds for which there is no foundation in the application for setting aside the award. Obviously, such new grounds containing new material/facts could not have been introduced for the first time in an appeal when admittedly these grounds were not originally raised in the arbitration petition for setting aside the award. {Para 28}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2928 of 2010 

Decided On: 01.04.2010

State of Maharashtra Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and R.M. Lodha, JJ.

Author: R.M. Lodha, J.

Citation: 2010 INSC 191, MANU/SC/0215/2010.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court: Do the principles relating to amendment of pleadings in original proceedings apply to the amendment in the grounds of appeal?

 Do the principles relating to amendment of pleadings in original proceedings apply to the amendment in the grounds of appeal? Order XLI Rule 2 CPC makes a provision that the appellant shall not, except by leave of the Court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal; but the Appellate Court, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objections set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Court. Order XLI Rule 3 CPC provides that where the memorandum of appeal is not drawn up as prescribed, it may be rejected, or be returned to the appellant for the purpose of being amended. {Para 20}

21. The aforesaid provisions in CPC leave no manner of doubt that the appellate court has power to grant leave to amend the memorandum of appeal. As a matter of fact, in Harcharan v. State of Haryana   MANU/SC/0166/1982 : (1982) 3 SCC 408 this Court observed that the memorandum of appeal has same position like the plaint in the suit. This Court said:

...When an appeal is preferred the memorandum of appeal has the same position like the plaint in a suit because plaintiff is held to the case pleaded in the plaint. In the case of memorandum of appeal same situation obtains in view of Order 41, Rule 3. The appellant is confined to and also would be held to the memorandum of appeal. To overcome any contention that such is not the pleading the appellant sought the amendment....

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2928 of 2010 

Decided On: 01.04.2010

State of Maharashtra Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and R.M. Lodha, JJ.

Author: R.M. Lodha, J.

Citation: 2010 INSC 191, MANU/SC/0215/2010

Print Page

When the Signature Becomes the Case: Delhi High Court on Proof of Contract, Defective Notarisation and the Limits of Section 34 of Arbitration Act

In arbitration, a claim founded on a disputed contract cannot survive unless the contract itself is first proved. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. reaffirms that principle with clarity and commercial realism.

Introduction

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd., decided on 11.03.2026, is an important ruling on contract formation, proof of execution, arbitral jurisdiction and the narrow limits of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment underscores a basic but often neglected truth of commercial litigation: where the very agreement containing the arbitration clause is not proved to have been executed, the arbitral claim may fail at the threshold itself.

Print Page

Precedent Is Not Res Judicata: A Civil Judge’s Guide to Finality, Issue Estoppel, and Re-agitation of Issues

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Eminent Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Housing Board is a valuable reminder that courts must not confuse the doctrine of precedent with the rule of res judicata. The judgment shows that even where another court has taken a different view on a similar clause, an issue already decided between the same parties cannot be reopened if that adjudication has attained finality.​

What makes the ruling especially important is that it goes beyond arbitration law and offers a broader lesson for civil adjudication. It helps judges distinguish among issues of law, issues of fact, and mixed questions of law and fact, and explains how each may operate in later proceedings through the doctrine of res judicata.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are exceptions to the principle of Res Judicata on issue of law?

 34.1. The general Rule is that all issues that arise directly and substantially in a former suit or proceeding between the same parties are res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties. These would include issues of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, and issues of law.

34.2. To this general proposition of law, there are certain exceptions when it comes to issues of law:

34.2.1. Where an issue of law decided between the same parties in a former suit or proceeding relates to the jurisdiction of the court, an erroneous decision in the former suit or proceeding is not res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties, even where the issue raised in the second suit or proceeding is directly and substantially the same as that raised in the former suit or proceeding. This follows from a reading of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure itself, for the Court which decides the suit has to be a court competent to try such suit. When read with Explanation I to Section 11, it is obvious that both the former as well as the subsequent suit need to be decided in courts competent to try such suits, for the "former suit" can be a suit instituted after the first suit, but which has been decided prior to the suit which was instituted earlier. An erroneous decision as to the jurisdiction of a court cannot clothe that court with jurisdiction where it has none. Obviously, a civil court cannot send a person to jail for an offence committed under the Penal Code. If it does so, such a judgment would not bind a Magistrate and/or Sessions Court in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, where the Magistrate sentences the same person for the same offence under the Penal Code. Equally, a civil court cannot decide a suit between a landlord and a tenant arising out of the rights claimed under a Rent Act, where the Rent Act clothes a special court with jurisdiction to decide such suits. As an example, Under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, the Small Cause Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings between a landlord and a tenant in respect of rights which arise out of the Bombay Rent Act, and no other court has jurisdiction to embark upon the same. In this case, even though the civil court, in the absence of the statutory bar created by the Rent Act, would have jurisdiction to decide such suits, it is the statutory bar created by the Rent Act that must be given effect to as a matter of public policy. [See, Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios at SCR p. 482]. An erroneous decision clothing the civil court with jurisdiction to embark upon a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant, in respect of rights claimed under the Bombay Rent Act, would, therefore, not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed before the Small Cause Court between the same parties in respect of the same matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit.

34.2.2. An issue of law which arises between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding is not res judicata if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory prohibition in the former suit or proceeding, the statutory prohibition is not given effect to. This is despite the fact that the matter in issue between the parties may be the same as that directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit or proceeding. This is for the reason that in such cases, the rights of the parties are not the only matter for consideration (as is the case of an erroneous interpretation of a statute inter partes), as the public policy contained in the statutory prohibition cannot be set at naught. This is for the same reason as that contained in matters which pertain to issues of law that raise jurisdictional questions. We have seen how, in Natraj Studios, it is the public policy of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act that has to be given effect to. Likewise, the public policy contained in other statutory prohibitions, which need not necessarily go to jurisdiction of a court, must equally be given effect to, as otherwise special principles of law are fastened upon parties when special considerations relating to public policy mandate that this cannot be done.

34.3. Another exception to this general Rule follows from the matter in issue being an issue of law different from that in the previous suit or proceeding. This can happen when the issue of law in the second suit or proceeding is based on different facts from the matter directly and substantially in issue in the first suit or proceeding. Equally, where the law is altered by a competent authority since the earlier decision, the matter in issue in the subsequent suit or proceeding is not the same as in the previous suit or proceeding, because the law to be interpreted is different.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2026 

Decided On: 04.02.2026

Eminent Colonizers Private Limited Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J

Citation: 2026 INSC 116, MANU/SC/0116/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court explains the distinction between the doctrine of Precedent and Res Judicata

There is a clear conceptual distinction between precedent and res judicata. Salmond on Jurisprudence P.J. Fitzgerald (12th Edition) page 141 states "a judicial precedent speaks in England with authority; it is not merely evidence of the law but a source of it, and the courts are bound to follow the law that is so established". A decision between two parties which sets out a principle of law will operate as a precedent for disputes between two other parties too. A precedent operates in rem. In contrast, a res judicata operates in personam between the same parties either in the later stage of the same litigation between them or in a different litigation between them. That is the essential distinction between the two. {Para 24}

Res judicata operates in personam i.e. the matter in issue between the same parties in the former litigation, while law of precedent operates in rem i.e. the law once settled is binding on all under the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Res judicata binds the parties to the proceedings for the reason that there should be an end to the litigation and therefore, subsequent proceeding inter se parties to the litigation is barred. Therefore, law of res judicata concerns the same matter, while law of precedent concerns application of law in a similar issue. In res judicata, the correctness of the decision is normally immaterial and it does not matter whether the previous decision was right or wrong, unless the erroneous determination relates to the jurisdictional matter of that body. [See Makhija Construction & Engg. (P) Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority,   MANU/SC/0302/2005 : (2005) 6 SCC 304]]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2026 

Decided On: 04.02.2026

Eminent Colonizers Private Limited Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J

Citation: 2026 INSC 116, MANU/SC/0116/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances an issue of law relating to jurisdiction of court erroneously decided in the former proceeding will not amount to res judicata?

28. In an erudite judgment, speaking for this Court Rohinton Fali Nariman, J. in Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty and Anr.   MANU/SC/0433/2018 : 2018:INSC:385 : (2018) 16 SCC 228, summarised the principles thus:

34. Given the conspectus of authorities that have been referred to by us hereinabove, the law on the subject may be stated as follows:

34.1. The general Rule is that all issues that arise directly and substantially in a former suit or proceeding between the same parties are res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties. These would include issues of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, and issues of law.

34.2. To this general proposition of law, there are certain exceptions when it comes to issues of law:

34.2.1. Where an issue of law decided between the same parties in a former suit or proceeding relates to the jurisdiction of the court, an erroneous decision in the former suit or proceeding is not res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties, even where the issue raised in the second suit or proceeding is directly and substantially the same as that raised in the former suit or proceeding. This follows from a reading of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure itself, for the Court which decides the suit has to be a court competent to try such suit. When read with Explanation I to Section 11, it is obvious that both the former as well as the subsequent suit need to be decided in courts competent to try such suits, for the "former suit" can be a suit instituted after the first suit, but which has been decided prior to the suit which was instituted earlier. An erroneous decision as to the jurisdiction of a court cannot clothe that court with jurisdiction where it has none. Obviously, a civil court cannot send a person to jail for an offence committed under the Penal Code. If it does so, such a judgment would not bind a Magistrate and/or Sessions Court in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, where the Magistrate sentences the same person for the same offence under the Penal Code. Equally, a civil court cannot decide a suit between a landlord and a tenant arising out of the rights claimed under a Rent Act, where the Rent Act clothes a special court with jurisdiction to decide such suits. As an example, Under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, the Small Cause Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings between a landlord and a tenant in respect of rights which arise out of the Bombay Rent Act, and no other court has jurisdiction to embark upon the same. In this case, even though the civil court, in the absence of the statutory bar created by the Rent Act, would have jurisdiction to decide such suits, it is the statutory bar created by the Rent Act that must be given effect to as a matter of public policy. [See, Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios at SCR p. 482]. An erroneous decision clothing the civil court with jurisdiction to embark upon a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant, in respect of rights claimed under the Bombay Rent Act, would, therefore, not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed before the Small Cause Court between the same parties in respect of the same matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 753 of 2026 

Decided On: 04.02.2026

Eminent Colonizers Private Limited Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J

Citation: 2026 INSC 116, MANU/SC/0116/2026

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 76)

Q 1:- If five accused are charged for the offence and two are absconded how judge will decide the case?

 Ans:- In cases with five accused where two are absconding, the judge typically proceeds with the trial against the three present accused by splitting the trial, ensuring speedy justice for those in custody.

This approach avoids stalling the entire case due to absconders, as affirmed in Supreme Court rulings and procedural norms under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the CrPC.

Standard Procedure

Print Page

What is difference between Section 34 of arbitration Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act?

Understanding the distinction between Section 34 (application for setting aside an arbitral award) and Section 37 (appealable orders) is crucial to grasping the framework of judicial intervention in arbitration. While they operate together in challenging arbitral outcomes, they function at distinctly different stages with fundamentally different scopes.

Nature and Stage of Intervention

Section 34 represents the primary recourse mechanism against a final arbitral award. It permits a party to directly challenge the award itself on specifically enumerated grounds before the Court. This application targets the substantive output of the arbitral tribunal—the award.

Print Page

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Arbitration: The Disortho v. Meril Landmark Ruling

 The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited,2025 INSC 352,ARBITRATION PETITION NO.48 OF 2023,dated: MARCH 18, 2025that provides crucial clarity on determining jurisdiction in international commercial arbitration when contractual clauses conflict. This March 2025 ruling, authored by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, addresses one of the most complex issues in cross-border dispute resolution: which courts have the authority to appoint arbitrators when parties have chosen different laws and venues for their agreement.

The Contractual Dilemma

Print Page

Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Powers to Modify Arbitral Awards: A Landmark Ruling on Limited Intervention

 Introduction: A Watershed Moment in Arbitration Law

In a significant development for India's arbitration landscape, the Supreme Court's five-judge bench in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1681) dated: 30th April, 2025 has finally settled the contentious question of whether courts can modify arbitral awards. This landmark 4:1 majority ruling establishes clear boundaries for judicial intervention while preserving the autonomy of arbitration proceedings.

The Legal Conundrum That Divided Courts

Print Page

Supreme Court: Provisions of Commercial courts Act will prevail over the Arbitration Act

  Thus, the Objects and Reasons of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to provide for speedy disposal of the commercial disputes which includes the arbitration proceedings. To achieve the said Objects, the legislature in its wisdom has specifically conferred the jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters as per Section 10 of the Act, 2015. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Act, 2015 is the Act later in time and therefore when the Act, 2015 has been enacted, more particularly Sections 3 & 10, there was already a provision contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1996. As per settled position of law, it is to be presumed that while enacting the subsequent law, the legislature is conscious of the provisions of the Act prior in time and therefore the later Act shall prevail. It is also required to be noted that even as per Section 15 of the Act, 2015, all suits and applications including applications under the Act, 1996, relating to a commercial dispute of specified value shall have to be transferred to the Commercial Court. Even as per Section 21 of the Act, 2015, Act, 2015 shall have overriding effect. It provides that save as otherwise provided, the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. {Para 10}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 6876 of 2022, 6878 of 2022 and 6877 of 2022

Decided On: 19.10.2022

Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, Cuttack and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: M.R. Shah, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1363/2022.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Designated Commercial Courts Subordinate To Rank Of Principal Civil Judge In The District Can Hear Appeals/Application Under Arbitration Act

 Thus, the Objects and Reasons of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to provide for speedy disposal of the commercial disputes which includes the arbitration proceedings. To achieve the said Objects, the legislature in its wisdom has specifically conferred the jurisdiction in respect of arbitration matters as per Section 10 of the Act, 2015. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Act, 2015 is the Act later in time and therefore when the Act, 2015 has been enacted, more particularly Sections 3 & 10, there was already a provision contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, 1996. As per settled position of law, it is to be presumed that while enacting the subsequent law, the legislature is conscious of the provisions of the Act prior in time and therefore the later Act shall prevail. It is also required to be noted that even as per Section 15 of the Act, 2015, all suits and applications including applications under the Act, 1996, relating to a commercial dispute of specified value shall have to be transferred to the Commercial Court. Even as per Section 21 of the Act, 2015, Act, 2015 shall have overriding effect. It provides that save as otherwise provided, the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. {Para 10}

11. Therefore, considering the afore-stated provisions of the Act, 2015 and the Objects and Reasons for which the Act, 2015 has been enacted and the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division in the High Courts are established for speedy disposal of the commercial disputes including the arbitration disputes, Sections 3 & 10 of the Act, 2015 shall prevail and all applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of Act, 1996, other than international commercial arbitration, shall be filed in and heard and disposed of by the Commercial Courts, exercising the territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such commercial courts have been constituted. If the submission on behalf of the Appellants that all applications/appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of Act, 1996, other than the international commercial arbitration, shall lie before the principal civil Court of a district, in that case, not only the Objects and Reasons of enactment of Act, 2015 and establishment of commercial courts shall be frustrated, even Sections 3, 10 & 15 shall become otiose and nugatory. If the submission on behalf of the Appellants is accepted, in that case, though with respect to other commercial disputes, the applications or appeals shall lie before the commercial courts established and constituted Under Section 3 of Act, 2015, with respect to arbitration proceedings, the applications or appeals shall lie before the principal civil Court of a district. There cannot be two fora with respect to different commercial disputes.

Under the circumstances, notification issued by the State of Odisha issued in consultation with the High Court of Orissa to confer jurisdiction upon the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) designated as Commercial Court to decide the applications or appeals arising out of arbitration under the provisions of Act, 1996 cannot be said to be illegal and bad in law. On the contrary, the same can be said to be absolutely in consonance with Sections 3 & 10 of Act, 2015. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court holding so.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 6876 of 2022, 6878 of 2022 and 6877 of 2022

Decided On: 19.10.2022

Jaycee Housing Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court, Cuttack and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: M.R. Shah, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1363/2022.

Print Page

Supreme Court: K.V. George v. Secretary: Cementing Res Judicata in Indian Arbitration Law

 The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Arbitration: An Analysis of K.V. George v. Secretary (AIR 1990 SC 53)

Introduction

Arbitration is widely recognized as an efficient alternative to traditional litigation, offering parties a streamlined and final resolution to their disputes. However, the question often arises: can issues already decided in one arbitration be re-litigated in another? The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of K.V. George v. Secretary to Government, Water and Power Department (AIR 1990 SC 53), addressed this very issue by affirming the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata to arbitration proceedings. This article explores the facts, legal principles, and far-reaching implications of this judgment.

Background of the Case

Print Page

Procedure for Registering and Executing an Arbitration Attachment Warrant in District Court

 When an attachment warrant issued by an arbitrator is received at a District Court, the court must follow specific procedures to register and execute it. This process is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This article outlines the steps involved in handling arbitration attachment warrants and provides insights into relevant case laws.

Under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral award is treated as a decree of the court. However, arbitral tribunals cannot enforce their orders directly. To enforce an attachment warrant issued by an arbitrator, it must first be registered with the District Court and executed as per CPC procedures.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Whether the court should direct deposit of Arbitration award amount U/S 9 of Arbitration Act?

Arbitration -Amount awarded -Deposit of -Sections 9 and36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -Present petition filed under Section 9 of Arbitration Act seeking deposit of amount awarded to NHAI and restraining respondent from alienating assets -Whether respondent must secure and deposit awarded amount and disclose assets to safeguard enforcement of arbitral award -Held, Section 9 of Arbitration Act permits reliefs before, during, or post-arbitration -Post-award, execution under Section 36 of Arbitration Act is standard for enforcing awards -Courts rarely order deposits under Section 9of Arbitration Act, except in exceptional cases where it's vital to protect award holder -Merely winning award doesn't justify deposit orders -Courts require evidence of risks rendering award unenforceable -Grounds like financial instability or asset movement must be substantiated -NHAI's plea cites stakes involved and respondent's financial condition -It only speculates risks without proof of asset dissipation or unrealisable claims -Concession agreement remains active, and IRB pledged no fund appropriation from escrow until dues clear -Courts apply strict standards to post-award Section 9 of Arbitration Act relief -There must be realisable award and proof of risk making it illusory -Precarious financial conditions alone are insufficient -IRB's substantial investments and commitments negate grounds for immediate deposit -Courts must balance fairness while ensuring awards aren't rendered illusory -Current facts don't justify granting NHAI's requested deposit -Petition dismissed. Deposit under Section 9 of Arbitration Act needs proven risk of award becoming unenforceable, not mere existence of award.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

OMP (I) (Comm.) 172/2024

Decided On: 18.10.2024

National Highways Authority of India Vs. IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollways Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: C. Hari Shankar, J.

Citation:  MANU/DE/7333/2024, 2024:DHC:8034.

Print Page

What is Role of the Waterfall Mechanism in Arbitration Proceedings?

 In arbitration proceedings, financial mechanisms such as the waterfall mechanism play a critical role in ensuring the structured allocation of funds, especially when disputes involve complex financial agreements. A recent arbitral tribunal directive has highlighted how this mechanism operates within arbitration, particularly in managing payments through escrow accounts. This article explores the relationship between the waterfall mechanism and arbitration proceedings, shedding light on its practical implications.

The waterfall mechanism is a structured and sequential approach to fund allocation. It ensures that payments are made in a predefined order of priority, much like water cascading down a series of steps. Higher-priority obligations are addressed first, and only once they are satisfied can funds flow to lower-priority obligations.

Print Page

Supreme Court: An arbitral award can be set aside under S 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 on limited grounds

Firstly, when we are of the opinion that the learned Arbitrator has committed patent illegality in applying two different notifications in determining the market value, keeping in view the scope available Under Section 34 of Act, 1996 it would not be open for this Court to substitute our view to that of the learned Arbitrator and modify the award. Further, the learned Additional Solicitor General sought to refer to Special Instruction No. 6 in the notification of 2014 to arrive at the market value even if it is accepted that the value of industrial land is not indicated in the notification. These are aspects to which the learned Arbitrator is required to advert so as to arrive at the conclusion. In the circumstance where we have opined that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator suffers from patent illegality and appropriate consideration is necessary, the only course open is to set aside the award and allow the learned Arbitrator to reconsider the matter on that aspect. {Para 48}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 2022.

Decided On: 11.07.2022

National Highways Authority of India Vs. P. Nagaraju and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Author: A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0850/2022.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Award Is Time-Barred U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Due To Petitioner's Failure To Confirm Award Receipt On Affidavit

 In this case, there is a specific instruction for the Administrative Assistant to the Tribunal to serve a copy of the award. Other than the self- serving statements made across the bar that the copy of the award was not received on 23.08.2017 the Petitioner has not shown any document as to whether it has received the award. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Tribunal has to show as to when did it served the copy of the award on the Petitioner cannot be accepted. In the absence of any positive affirmation on affidavit from the Petitioner as to when was the award received, this Court cannot accept the mere ipse dixit of the Petitioner that as soon as the award was received it was filed by the Petitioner. {Para 24}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

O.M.P. (COMM) 49/2018, I.A. 1565/2018, I.A. 4650/2018, I.A. 4659/2018 and I.A. 9614/2018

Decided On: 12.12.2024

Indure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aneja Construction (India) Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Subramonium Prasad, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/9015/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: S. 14 Limitation Act is Applicable To Proceedings Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act

 Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the

opinion that the issue is covered by the decision of this

court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal

Secretary, Irrigation Dept. 2008 (7) SCC 169. (supra). {Para 9}

10. We may hasten to add that when the substantive remedies

under Sections 34 and/or 37 of the Arbitration Act are by

their very nature limited in their scope due to statutory

prescription, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

, it is necessary to interpret the limitation

provisions liberally, or else, even that limited window to

challenge an arbitral award will be lost. The remedies under

Sections 34 and 37 are precious. Courts of law will keep in

mind the need to secure and protect such a remedy while

calculating the period of limitation for invoking these

jurisdictions.

11. Applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, we hold that

there is sufficient cause for excluding the period commencing

from 20.10.2011 to 23.02.2012. In view of the fact that this

period is excluded, the appellant will be entitled to the

statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Act.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12849-12856/2024

KIRPAL SINGH  Vs GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS. 

Dated: November 21,2024. 

Citation: 2024 INSC 944.

Print Page