tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post5082988672587131034..comments2023-12-23T18:42:30.780+05:30Comments on Practical Academic: Part II: Applicability of the 2015 Arbitration Amendment Act to Arbitration Related Court ProceedingsBadrinath Srinivasanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11123853000962107353noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-27944311195203876452016-08-30T17:15:33.686+05:302016-08-30T17:15:33.686+05:30You said that the judgment in electrosteel talks a...You said that the judgment in electrosteel talks about pending court related arbitral proceedings and such proceedings initiated after 23.10.2015 relating to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23.10.2015. But I am unable to find out any such decision of the court while going through the case. It only talks about arbitral proceedings and not arbitral related court proceedings. Please clarify the same!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-32338069932870369252016-08-24T11:05:46.964+05:302016-08-24T11:05:46.964+05:30Well written. However, there's one thing I'...Well written. However, there's one thing I'd like to point out. As far as the 1st consequence which you've written about is concerned, the conclusion I can arrive at, upon reading the Law Commission's Report on Pages 50 and 59 is that even if Section 85A of the Report was incorporated, the 2nd exception to Section 85A would have ensured that the matter be referred to arbitral tribunals even in cases of pending court proceedings/ where the judgment has been reserved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-17738331881625032202016-06-15T13:58:50.309+05:302016-06-15T13:58:50.309+05:30Post-Saw Pipes, there were two lines of decisions:...Post-Saw Pipes, there were two lines of decisions: one set of decisions held (expressly or by implication) that if there is an error of law, or error in the interpretation of a contractual provision (or at times error of fact), the award would be deemed to be patently illegal; the other line of precedents (which have become more common among most High Courts in the past few years) is that the award should, on the face of it, be illegal. Mere error of law or error of application of law to facts, etc. would not constitute a ground for setting aside. The proviso in the 2015 Amendment Act addresses the former line of decisions while the main clause addresses the latter type of precedents.Badrinath Srinivasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123853000962107353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-45031476283441634912016-06-15T13:44:00.406+05:302016-06-15T13:44:00.406+05:30Also,the test for public policy and patent illegal...Also,the test for public policy and patent illegality was narrowed down/clarified anyway in Associate Builders v. DDA which is a pre-amendment judgment. So will this retrospective application have a lot of effect on such a contention?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-12394385826575526362016-06-15T13:24:36.239+05:302016-06-15T13:24:36.239+05:30According to you, (consequence No. 4) a party cann...According to you, (consequence No. 4) a party cannot challenge question the award for patent illegality. However, if you read Section 34(2A), it says "An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award:<br />Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence."<br />Is Section 2A a 'narrower provision' when compared with the law laid down in Saw Pipes and Western Geco?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-69777229531792373462016-04-20T14:23:44.783+05:302016-04-20T14:23:44.783+05:30Electrosteels states that the 2015 Act is not appl...Electrosteels states that the 2015 Act is not applicable to pending court-related arbitration proceedings and such proceedings initiated after 23.10.2015 relating to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23.10.2015. The other two judgements noted there state that 2015 Act would apply to such court-related arbitration proceedings. The confusion arises because Section 26 is negatively worded. "Nothing contained in this Act..."<br /><br />To put it differently, Electrosteels held that the bar under Section 26 was applicable to pending court-related arbitration proceedings and such proceedings initiated after 23.10.2015 relating to arbitral proceedings commenced prior to 23.10.2015. The other two judgements held that the bar under Section 26 was not applicable to those proceedings.Badrinath Srinivasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123853000962107353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-60405483086088611182016-04-20T13:56:07.300+05:302016-04-20T13:56:07.300+05:30Could you please clarify how Electrosteels is diff...Could you please clarify how Electrosteels is different from Tufan Chatterjee/New Tirupur. I was under the assumption that both say the same thing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-2670584755794531442016-04-20T13:48:32.212+05:302016-04-20T13:48:32.212+05:30Not all the judgments. Electrosteels (Singe Judge ...Not all the judgments. Electrosteels (Singe Judge Cal HC) was of the view that by virtue of Section 26, the 2015 Act would not apply to Section 34 proceedings challenging arbitral awards.Badrinath Srinivasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123853000962107353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-68837861795851327672016-04-20T13:09:05.326+05:302016-04-20T13:09:05.326+05:30Thanks a lot.
Another point- in the second post ...Thanks a lot. <br /><br />Another point- in the second post in the very beginning you've said "In the last post, we had analysed some conflicting decisions on the point". But, aren't all the judgments in the first post, quite unequivocal on the point that the expression “to the arbitral proceedings” instead of “in relation to arbitral proceedings”, would mean that Section 26 will not apply to arbitration related court proceedings. So what exactly is the conflict you're referring to?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-6256113130703407662016-04-20T13:01:54.697+05:302016-04-20T13:01:54.697+05:30Thanks for pointing out :) . The relevant sentence...Thanks for pointing out :) . The relevant sentence in the second part should read: "...the legislative intent was not to apply Section 26 even to arbitration related court proceedings". I've missed the word "not" and the same has been corrected. I hope now there is no confusion. Badrinath Srinivasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11123853000962107353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6685096796297650696.post-15486359059458261542016-04-20T12:41:33.399+05:302016-04-20T12:41:33.399+05:30Both your posts are quite confusing. Where, in the...Both your posts are quite confusing. Where, in the first post you've said that both Tufan Chatterjee and the New Tirupur judgments have held that since Section 26 uses the expression “to the arbitral proceedings” instead of “in relation to arbitral proceedings”, the legislative intent was to not apply Section 26 to arbitration related court proceedings. However, in the second post you've said that according to both the judgments, since Section 26 uses the expression “to the arbitral proceedings” instead of “in relation to arbitral proceedings”, the Courts have said that the legislative intent was to apply Section 26 even to arbitration related court proceedings. <br /><br />Could you please clarify. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com