Latest News
Back
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A Milestone in Dispute Resolution
Introduction: Arbitration has emerged as a preferred alternative dispute resolution mechanism in India. It offers parties a private and efficient means of settling disputes outside of traditional court systems. Over the years, Indian courts have played a crucial role in shaping the landscape of arbitration law through landmark judgments. These judgments have not only clarified legal principles but have also enhanced the credibility and effectiveness of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. In this article, we explore some of the significant landmark judgments in arbitration law in India.
-
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services (2012): In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that the court's interference in the arbitration process should be minimal. The court established the principle of "kompetenz-kompetenz," affirming that the arbitral tribunal has the authority to determine its jurisdiction, including the power to rule on its jurisdictional disputes. The judgment emphasized the importance of limited judicial intervention and ensuring the autonomy of arbitral tribunals.
-
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services (2012): In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of public policy as a ground for challenging an arbitral award. The court held that an award could be set aside if it is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of justice, or morality. However, the court stressed that mere error in the application of the law would not justify interference with an award.
-
Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa (2013): The Supreme Court in this case held that the doctrine of "group of companies" can be invoked to bind non-signatory affiliates to arbitration agreements. The court recognized that where there is a close relationship between the signatory and non-signatory companies, and the disputes are intertwined, the non-signatory can be compelled to participate in arbitration proceedings.
-
Bharat Rasiklal Ashra v. Gautam Rasiklal Ashra (2016): This judgment clarified the position of non-signatories to arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court held that non-signatories could be bound by arbitration agreements if the disputes are based on common rights and obligations arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions. The court emphasized the need to adopt a pragmatic and flexible approach to determine the parties bound by arbitration agreements.
-
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. (2019): In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle of party autonomy in appointing arbitrators. The court held that when parties have agreed to a specific mechanism for appointing arbitrators, they must adhere to that mechanism. It reiterated that court intervention should be limited, and the designated arbitral institution should have the power to appoint arbitrators by the agreed procedure.
Conclusion: The above-mentioned landmark judgments in arbitration law have significantly contributed to the development and evolution of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in India. These judgments have established principles such as minimal judicial interference, kompetenz-kompetenz, and the binding effect of arbitration agreements on non-signatories. They have fostered the growth of party autonomy and emphasized the importance of upholding arbitral awards. By clarifying and refining the legal framework, these judgments have played a pivotal role in promoting arbitration as an effective and credible means of resolving disputes in India.
