ARBITRATION CHART 2

Shared by: Advocate Mahesh Vaswani,

Mumbai, Mobile No. 9821610888

Sr. CITATION LAW POINTS AND RELEVANT PARA

No.
1. Rajasthan Udyog Vs. Ss. 2(a), (b) & (c), 9, 13 and 14 – Whether reference to arbitration in
Hindustan Engg. & terms of agreement dt. 1-2-1980 only envisaged fixation —
Industries Ltd. Contractual Restitution Clause/Contractual quantum of price of land
2020 6 SCC 660; in question - Opening of agreement dt. 1-2-1980 stating that parties
2020 3 SCC (Civ) 755; had "referred their dispute regarding determination of for reasoned
AIR 2020 SC 2550 award — Arbitrator failing to give compensation of land to me as
sole arbitrator" —
Hence held, reference was merely to declare price would have been
to remit matter to arbitrator of land/compensation to be paid by
respondent.

2. K. Marappan Vs. S.29 – Grant of pendente lite interest permissibility of –

TBPHLC, In the present case, Following the ruling in G.C Roy, (1992) 1 SCC
(2020) 15 SCC 401 508, wherein it was inter alia, held that where the agreement between
parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims
interest and that dispute (along with the claim for principal amount or
independently) is referred to the arbitrator shall have the power to
award interest pendente lite, the petitioner held entitled to interest on
claim allowed – Interest Act, 1978 – S.3 (Paras 87 and 88)

3. Chandigarh S.30 – Arbitration clause providing for reasoned award – Arbitrator

Construction Cp. (P) failing to give reasons – Held, proper course for courts below would
Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab have been to remit matter to arbitrator for decision afresh – However,
(2020) 11 SCC 161 due to the fact that matter has been pending for long, matter finally
disposed of by Supreme Court.

4. Union of India Vs. Generally – Applicability of 2016 Amendment Act – Held, 2016
Vedanta Ltd. Amendment Act applies prospectively to:
(2020) 10 SCC 1: (1) “Arbitral proceedings” initiated on or after 23-12-215 i.e. the
AIR 2020 SC 4550 date on which the 2015 Amendment Act came into force.
(2) Court Proceedings commenced on or after 23-12-215,
irrespective of whether such court proceedings arise out of, or relate
 to arbitration proceedings which were commenced prior to, or after
the commencement of the Amendment Act (Paras 108 to 110)
Thus, the amended Section 48 would not be applicable in the present
case, since the Court proceedings for enforcement were filed by the
respondent-claimants on 14-10-2014 i.e. prior to the 2016
Amendment Act having come into force on 23-10-2015. (Para 111)

5. Chhabba Lal Vs. Kallu Reference was made by the parties to the agreement to a third party
Lal for deciding matter in dispute in the suit and also for deciding the
AIR 1946 PC 72 question of costs it was held that it was a reference to arbitration and
that person was not a referee.

6. Mohammad Miya Vs. The third person had to decide a dispute or do some judicial or quasi-
Osmail Ali judicial work, his determination was held to be an award.
AIR 1935 Cal 239

7. Sadhu Ram Vs. Ude In a suit for partition of join family properties and rendition of
Ram AIR 1935 Cal 239 accounts, reference was made to a ‘referee’ by consent of parties to
hear the dispute and give a decision, it was held that referee would be
deemed to be an arbitrator and his decision an award and not a
reference under Section 20 of the Evidence Act.

8. Practical Properties Pvt. The decision of the Arbitral tribunal rejecting the plea under Section
Ltd. Vs. Comet 16 can be challenged only after the award is made by making an
Overseas Pvt. Ltd. application under Section 34 for setting aside the award.
2016 (2) Arb. LR 255
(Delhi)

9. Satwant Singh Sodhi The question whether interim award is final to the extent it goes or
Vs. State Of Punjab & has effect till the final award is delivered will depend upon the
Ors form of the award. If the interim award is intended to have effect
(1999) 3 SCC 487, 491 only so long as the final award is not delivered it will have the
force of the interim award and it will cease to have effect after the
final award is made. If, on the other hand, the interim award is
intended to finally determine the rights of the parties it will have
the force of a complete award and will have effect even after the
final award is delivered.
10. McDermott Thus, an interim award under the Act is a final award on the
International Inc. Vs. matters covered thereby, but made at an interim stage. If the partial
Burn Standard Co. Ltd award answers the definition of the award, as envisaged under
(2006) 11 SCC 181, S.2(c) of the 1996 Act, for all intent and purport, it would be a
211 final award.