Chloro Controls Pvt. Ltd., v.

Severn Trent Water Purification Inc & Ors

(2013) 1 SCC 641
When the Court satisfies that agreement is enforceable and is not null and
void then it is obligatory upon the Court to make reference to arbitration.
Sharad P Jagtrani v. Edelweiss Securities Ltd
2014 (3) R.A.J 449 (Del)
Sec 8(1) & (2) - reference to arbitration - non-filing of separate application
- objection in WS a/w certified copy of arbitration agreement - sufficiency
of - Therefore Def inspite of having not filed an application u/s 8, but in
view of the preliminary objection in WS - Sec 8 involved - bounden duty of
the Court to refer parties to Arb Application u/s 8 filed after filing of WS is not maintainable - mere
disclosure of arbitration agreement in the WS and claiming that Civil Court
has no jurisdiction to try the suit - no consequence unless the WS itself
contains a prayer for referring the disputes for arbitration.
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd.
(2011) 5 SCC 532
Supreme Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot decide criminality.
Article 11(n) of the Schedule II of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits
Valuation Act - if an application is filed to set to set aside an award under
the ACA, 1940 and if the subject matter of the Award exceeds Rs.5000/fixed Court fee of Rs.100 has to be paid.
A.R.Shambulinga and Another V. A.C. Lalitha and others
ILR 2006 KAR 1335, 2006 (3) KLJ 128
Ashapura Mine-Chem Ltd., v. Gujarat Mineral Development Corp.
irrespective of the question or as to the fact whether the MoU fructified into
a full fledged agreement, having regard to the non-fulfillment of any of the
conditions or failure of compliance of any requirement by either of the
parties stipulated in the other Clauses of MoU, specific agreement has been
entered into by the Appellant and the Respondent Under Clause 27 to refer
such controversies as between the parties to the sole arbitrator by consensus
therefore when consensus was not reached as between the parties for
making reference, eventually it will be open for either of the parties to
involve Section 11 of the Act and seek for reference of the dispute for
arbitration.
Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49
Grounds to set aside an arbitral award u/s 34.

Conjoint reading of S-34 with S.5 makes it clear that an arbitration award
that is governed by Part I of the ACA, 1996 can be set aside only on
grounds mentioned u/s 34(2) and (3).
None of the grounds contained in S.34(2)(a) deal with the merits of the
decision rendered by an arbitral award - only when the award comes to
being in conflict with the public policy of India that the merits of an arbitral
award are to be looked into under certain specified cirumstances.
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. V. General Electrical C. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644
"Public Policy" in the context of a foreign award, the Court held that an
award contrary to
i)
fundamental policy of Indian law
ii)
interest of India
iii)
justice or morality
ONGC Ltd v. SAW PIPES Ltd (2003) 5 SCC 705
In addition to the narrower meaning given to the term "public policy" in
Renusagar case.
i)
ii)
iii)

fundamental policy of Indian Law

interest of India
in addition, if it is patently illegal

Patent Illegality - Mc Dermott International Inc v. Burn Std. Co Ltd (2006)

11 SCC 181
Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd (2006)
11 SCC 245
Grounds for setting aside an award (2008) 13 SCC 80
J.G. Engineers (P) Ltd v. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 758
Interpreted ONGC Ltd v. Saw Pipes Ltd [also see Union of India v. L.S.N.
Murthy (2012) 1 SCC 718
audi alteram partem - contained in S.18 (equal treatment of parties) and
S.34 (application for setting aside arbitral award)
Working test of perversity
Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons
1992 Supp (2) SCC 312
Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10
When a Court is applying the "public policy" test to an arbitration award, it
does not act as a Court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be
corrected - A Court does not sit in appeal over the award of an Arbitral
Tribunal by reassuring or re-appreciating the evidence. Therefore in the

absence of any ground u/s 34(2) of the Act, it is not possible to re-examine
the facts to find out whether a different decision can be arrived at.
P.R. Shah, Shares & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. V. B.H.H Securities (2012) 1
SCC 594
McDermott Int. Inc v. Burn Std. Co. Ltd (2006) 11 SCC 181 Construction of a contract - interpretation of a contract is a matter for the
arbitrator to determine even if it rise to determination of a question of law
[Also see (2003) 8 SCC 593, (2004) 5 SCC 325]
MSK Projects (1) (JV) Ltd v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 10 SCC 573
If the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the contract that is
an error within his jurisdiction - if he wanders outside the contract and deals
with matters not allotted to him, he commits a jurisdictional error - extrinsic
evidence is admissible in such cases because the dispute is not something
which arises under or in relation to the contract or dependent on the
construction of the contract or to be determined within the award ambiguity of the award can in such cases be resolved by admitting extrinsic
evidence - the rationale of this rule is that the nature of the dispute is
something which has to be determined outside and independent of what
appears in the award - such a jurisdictional error needs to be proved by
evidence extrinsic to the award [Also see AIR 1954 SC 689, AIR 1959 SC
1362, AIR 1965 SC 214, (2012) 5 SCC 306]
L & T Ltd. v. Mohal Lal Harbans Lal Bhayan (2015) 2 SCC 461
_______ of contract - effect - non-survival of arbitration clause in original
agreement when said clause in original agreement when said clause is
modified by subsequent agreements - Held if arbitration clause and
procedure for appointment of arbitrator in original agreement is _______
and parties acted accordingly clause in original agreement for appointment
of arbitrator cannot be invoked.
Anil v. Rajendra (2015) 2 SCC 583
Once a judicial authority takes a decision under S.8(1) ACA, d1996
declining to refer the dispute pending before it to arbitration and the said
decision having become final, whether either party to the proceedings can
thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of C.J. u/s. 11(6).

AIR 2007 SC 2961

Jurisdiction of Court - Court should exercise power under Article 142 to
meet situations which cannot be effectively and approximately tackled by
existing provisions of law
AIR 2002 SC 404

As long as arbitration clause exists, having recourse to Civil Court for

adjudication of disputes - envisaged to be resolved through arbitral process
or getting any orders of the nature from Civil Court for appointment of
receiver or prohibitory orders without indicating any intention to have
recourse to arbitration in terms of the agreement may not rise.
AIR 2003 SC 2252 [Interpretation of Sec. 8 of Arbitration Act]
1.
Interpretation of Sec. 8 has no bearing on Sec. 5 of the Arbitration
Act. Arbitration Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to
decide the dispute in a case where the parties to the agreement do not take
appropriate steps under Sec. 8 of the Act.
2.
There is no provision in the Act that when the subject matter of the
suit includes subject matter of the arbitration agreement, the matter is
required to be referred to arbitration.
3.
There is no provision as to what is required to be done in a case
where some parties to the suit are not parties to the arbitration agreement.
AIR 2006 SC 2800
Once it is found that the dispute between the parties arose out of the
contract, Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act would be attracted.
Bifurcation of the subject matter of an action brought before a judicial
authority is not allowed.
AIR 2008 SC 1016
For application of Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, it is absolutely
essential that there should be an arbitration agreement between the parties.
(1993) 1 SCC 230
If there is no concluded contract between the parties the question of
arbitration of disputes does not arise.
AIR 1989 SC 839
The Court cannot make a contract between the parties and its power ends
with interpretation of the contract between them, same principle applies to
arbitration agreements. If the contract is illegal and not binding on the
parties the arbitration clause would also be not binding.