The Supreme Court has set aside the appointment of an arbitral tribunal, and the drastic Section 17 interim orders it passed freezing bank accounts and permitting takeover of properties, as non est in law, holding that the tribunal had been appointed without the appellants’ consent and in the face of a clear objection alleging its close links with the opposite party. Observing that arbitration, though it rhymes with the word, cannot result in an arbitrary measure, the Court appointed a fresh arbitrator and ordered restitution of the amounts and properties.
Top Indian legal experts emphasize the need for arbitrators to act cautiously and fairly when fraud is suspected, even if not formally raised. Discussions highlighted the importance of procedural steps to balance efficiency with due process. The integrity of arbitration is crucial, especially in cases involving significant public funds and potential collusion.
Today, On 16th May, The Delhi High Court approved SpiceJet’s appeal, overturning a previous order to refund Rs. 270 crore to Kalanithi Maran. This marks a legal victory for SpiceJet in the long-standing dispute with Maran. The court upheld an Arbitral Award, overturning the previous order and setting aside the refund directive. This decision is significant for the airline.
On Monday (15th April), the Bombay High Court in Goa faced a jurisdictional challenge under the Arbitration Act, 1996. Justice Bharat P Deshpande referred the matter to a larger bench due to conflicting decisions within the court. The challenge revolves around the interpretation of Section 29A, addressing the procedural timeline for arbitration proceedings in India.
