Latest News
Here are some of the latest developments, court judgments, legislative changes, and other news related to construction arbitration in India.
- Deemed Extension for Timelines expiring on or after Mar 15, 2020 +
- Court under Section 9 can secure the entire amount awarded under the Award
- Cabinet Clears Bill To Make Arbitrators More Accountable
- Prohibition against the appointment of a sole arbitrator by one would also apply to ongoing arbitrations
- Can a Notice regarding Disputes & Amount of Dispute be Notice to Arbitration
- Stamp Duty must be paid to authenticate the Arbitration Clause
-
Limitation period for filing of written statement as prescribed in the CPC would be
applicable for filing of an application under Section 8
Landmark Judgements
These landmark judgments provide insights into various aspects of construction industry arbitration in India, such as enforcement of awards, extension of time claims, and the power of Indian courts in international arbitration matters. However, as mentioned earlier, it is crucial to verify for any recent developments or updates in construction industry arbitration cases in India.
- Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (AIR 2015 SC 706): In this case, the Supreme Court of India dealt with issues related to extension of time claims in construction contracts and how the Arbitrator should assess such claims.
- Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. Union of India (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1520): The Supreme Court of India addressed the applicability of the amendment to the Arbitration Act, which deals with the time limit for passing an arbitration award.
- Antrix Corporation Ltd. v. Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. (2020 SCC OnLine SC 419): In this case, the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of the power of Indian courts to intervene in international commercial arbitrations held outside India.
- DDA v. Tarachand Sumit Construction Co. (2007) 5 SCC 124: In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the principle that once the arbitration agreement is invoked by any party, the court's jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator is ousted. The court clarified that even if the respondent denies the existence of an arbitration agreement, the matter should be referred to arbitration.
- Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board (2016) 2 SCC 433: The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether a "Government company" is considered a "State" under Section 2(1)(e)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The court held that a government company would not be treated as "State" for the purpose of the Act and, thus, could not claim immunity from arbitration.
- Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) (2019) 15 SCC 131: The Supreme Court discussed the principles of "patent illegality" and the limited scope of interference in arbitral awards. The court held that an award can only be set aside under Section 34 of the Act if it meets the narrow criteria of "patent illegality" or violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
- Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2017) 2 SCC 228: In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that an arbitration clause in a main contract will not automatically apply to a subsequent contract between the same parties. Each contract should be treated as an independent and separate arbitration agreement unless there is a clear intention to the contrary.
- IRCON International Ltd. v. Govt. of Sri Lanka (2019) 3 SCC 727: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that an arbitration agreement contained in a separate document must be in writing and duly signed by the parties in order to be enforceable.