Landmark Judgments of Arbitration & Conciliation
The 22 leading Arbitration & Conciliation cases — each with a full brief (facts, issues, held, ratio). Verified against the original judgment. Free to read.
Setting aside the award & public policy (S34)
- Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. Public policy as a ground means Indian public policy and is confined to three narrow heads: fundamental policy of Indian law, interests of India, and justice or morality.
- ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. For challenges to domestic Part I awards, 'public policy' is to be read widely and includes 'patent illegality' going to the root of the matter.
- Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa 'Public policy of India' for enforcement of a foreign award (S. 48) carries the narrow Renusagar meaning and does not include the wider Saw Pipes patent-illegality test applicable to S. 34 domestic awards.
- ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd. 'Fundamental policy of Indian law' embraces a judicial approach, principles of natural justice and Wednesbury reasonableness; an irrational/perverse award violates public policy.
- Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority Systematised the public-policy grounds under S. 34 (fundamental policy, justice/morality, patent illegality), while reaffirming that the court is not an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence.
- Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Post-2015, the expanded Western Geco/Wednesbury view of public policy is gone; patent illegality (per Associate Builders) survives only for domestic non-ICA awards, not as a backdoor merits review.
Arbitration agreement & reference (S7, S8, S11)
- K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi An arbitration agreement requires a judicial determination binding on the parties; where a clause provides for a decision by a named authority/expert without intent to arbitrate, it is expert determination, not arbitration.
- Wellington Associates Ltd. v. Kirit Mehta A clause stating disputes 'may' be referred to arbitration does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement; the Chief Justice/designate under S11 may decide the existence of an arbitration agreement.
- SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. The power of the Chief Justice/designate under Section 11 is judicial, not administrative; he must decide preliminary issues including the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and jurisdiction before appointing an arbitrator.
- Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander A clause merely contemplating that parties 'may' refer disputes to arbitration on future consensus is not an arbitration agreement; intent to arbitrate must be clear and binding.
- M.R. Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Som Datt Builders Ltd. A general reference in a sub-contract to a main contract does not incorporate its arbitration clause; incorporation under S7(5) requires a specific reference to the arbitration clause itself.
Seat/venue, jurisdiction & kompetenz-kompetenz (BALCO)
- Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. & Anr. Part I of the 1996 Act applies even to arbitrations seated outside India unless the parties expressly or impliedly exclude its application.
- Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO) Part I of the 1996 Act does not apply to arbitrations seated outside India; choosing a foreign seat imports that country's supervisory law and excludes Indian courts' supervisory jurisdiction.
- Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GmbH Where a clause names a foreign 'venue' but designates Indian substantive, governing and curial law, the seat is in India and the foreign location is only a venue for hearings.
- Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura Minechem Ltd. An express choice of a foreign seat impliedly chooses the curial law of that seat and excludes the concurrent supervisory jurisdiction of Indian courts under Part I.
- Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Designating a seat of arbitration is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause; the courts at the seat alone have supervisory jurisdiction even if no part of the cause of action arose there.
Interim measures (S9, S17)
- Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja Only a party to the arbitration agreement may apply for interim measures under Section 9; appointment of a receiver turns on whether it is just and convenient.
- Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The court's power to grant interim measures under Section 9 must be exercised on the well-recognised principles governing grant of interim injunctions and other interim protection.
- Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. Part I of the Act, including Section 9, has no application to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India; no Section 9 interim relief is available in such cases.
Enforcement & appeals (S36, S37)
- National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd. Under the unamended Section 36, the filing of a Section 34 application operates as an automatic stay on enforcement of the award, leaving courts no discretion; the Court flagged this as defeating arbitration's object and urged Parliament to amend the law.
- Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. Amended Section 36 (no automatic stay on filing a Section 34 challenge) applies to court proceedings, including enforcement, commenced on or after 23 October 2015 irrespective of when the arbitration began.
- Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India Section 87 of the Act, which revived the automatic-stay regime for pre-2015 matters and deleted Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment, is struck down as manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional; the BCCI v. Kochi Cricket position continues.
