top of page

The Arbitration and Conciliation act (Landmark Judgement)

Updated: May 4


Lombardi Engineering Ltd v. State of Uttarakhand (2023)

The Supreme Court held that a clause in an arbitration agreement which is not in consonance with the Constitution cannot be enforced. The Court further held that it can examine if the arbitration clauses are manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution while considering an application for appointment of arbitrator.

Rukmani Bai v. Collector, AIR 1981 SC 479

The Supreme Court emphasised the necessity to ascertain whether the parties have agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration. Such an arrangement constitutes an arbitration agreement, without any specific form required.

Giriraj Garg v. Coal India, (2019) 5 SCC 192

The Supreme Court established that an arbitration agreement can exist independently and need not necessarily be in the form of a clause within a contract


M.M. T.C. Ltd. v. Stedite Industries Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 716

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement cannot be invalidated on the grounds that it specifies an even number of arbitrators.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antique Arts Exports (P) Ltd., (2019) 5 SCC 262

The Supreme Court declared that the appointment of an arbitrator by the court constitutes a judicial power rather than merely an administrative function.

Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. v. United Telecoms Limited, (2019) 5 SCC 755

The Supreme Court held that the appointment of an arbitrator by an individual ineligible to serve as an arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is void ab initio.

Sai Babu vs. Clariya Steels Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 5 SCJ 503

The Supreme Court observed that the termination of arbitration proceedings by the arbitrator under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be revoked.

NHAI vs. Subhash Bindlish, 2019 (5) RCR (Civil) 762

The Supreme Court observed that the time limit under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, providing a maximum of 120 days to file an application to set aside an arbitral award, remains unchanged even after the 2015 Amendment of the Act.

Union of India v. Dalmia Engineering Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1990 SC 70

An unrelated third party is not bound by the arbitral tribunal's award and cannot participate in the proceedings, as arbitration is regarded as a private process.

K.K. Modi v. KM. Modi, AIR 1998 SC 1297

The existence of an arbitration agreement to submit the dispute to arbitration must be discernible from the facts and circumstances of the case, dependent on the parties' intention deduced from relevant documents.

Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P. V.G. Raju, AIR 2000 SC 1886

The language of Section 8 is mandatory. It is incumbent upon the court to refer the dispute to arbitration per the arbitration agreement's terms if the conditions are met.


SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd, (2005) 8 SCC 618

The authority wielded by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) constitutes a judicial power rather than an administrative one.

Union of India v. Popular Builders, (2000) 8 SCC 1

The presence of an arbitrable dispute is a prerequisite for the exercise of power by the arbitrator.

Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc, (2019) 13 SCC 472

In cases where an arbitration agreement is silent regarding the applicable law and procedure, the law governing the contract itself typically governs the arbitration agreement.

Mankastu Impex (P) Ltd. v. Airvisual Ltd, (2020) 5 SCC 399

When parties select the juridical seat of arbitration in a particular country, they implicitly submit to the laws of that country. Designating the seat is akin to stipulating an exclusive jurisdiction clause.

Union of India v. Pradeep Vinod Construction Co., (2020) 2 SCC 464

Unless exceptional reasons exist, if the agreement specifically names arbitrators, they should be appointed in accordance with the agreement's terms.

Alka Chandewar v. Shamshul Ishrar Khan, (2017) 16 SCC 119

The addition of Section 17(2) to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, eliminates the need for the Arbitral Tribunal to apply to the High Court for contempt of its orders. Such interim orders are now deemed enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure as if they were court orders.

Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. United Machinery and Appliances, (2017) 2 SCC 268

Section 8(1) explicitly indicates that the legislature did not intend to consider the filing of a simple application for an extension of time to file a written statement as the first substantive statement regarding the dispute.

Hema Khattar v. Shiv Khera, (2017) 7 SCC 716

Even if an agreement ends by mutual consent, the arbitration clause within it remains valid and operative.

Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company vs Union of India (2023)

The Supreme Court reiterated that a court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has no power to modify an arbitration award.

The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act, permits the court to interfere with an award, sans the grounds of patent illegality.

Konkan Railway Corporation Limited vs Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking (2023)

The Supreme Court observed that Arbitration awards cannot be set aside on mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract. The jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is exercised only to see if the Arbitral Tribunal's view is perverse or manifestly arbitrary.

TATA Sons Pvt Ltd v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd (2023)

In terms of the amended provisions of Section 29A, arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are only expected to make an endeavour to complete the proceedings within twelve months from the date of competition of pleadings and are not bound to abide by the time limit prescribed for domestic arbitrations.



bottom of page