Case Note & Summary
Existence of Arbitration Agreement: Whether the purported arbitration agreement dated 01.04.1957 was valid and enforceable. Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrators: Whether the arbitrators were appointed in violation of the principles of party autonomy and statutory requirements.Fraudulent Claims: Whether the arbitration proceedings and awards were tainted with fraud, lacking jurisdiction. (Paras: 16-25)
Acts and Sections Discussed:
Constitution of India (COI) Article 226: Jurisdiction of High Courts Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) Section 7: Arbitration Agreement Section 11: Appointment of Arbitrators Section 34: Application for Setting Aside Arbitral Award Section 43: Limitation Period Section 18: Equal Treatment of Parties Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Section 47: Questions to Be Determined by the Court Executing a DecreeSubjects:Arbitration Agreement, Limitation Period, Unilateral Appointment, Ex Parte Awards, Fraudulent Arbitration
Decision and Ratio Decidendi:
Nullity of Awards:The Supreme Court declared the ex parte arbitration awards dated 15.02.2008 and 25.06.2008 as null and void, holding that the arbitration agreement relied upon was not established. Fraudulent Proceedings:The Court emphasized that arbitration proceedings orchestrated by the respondent were fraudulent and lacked jurisdiction, violating fundamental principles of justice. Principle of Party Autonomy:The unilateral appointment of arbitrators was deemed invalid. Arbitration requires consent and adherence to statutory frameworks under the A&C Act. Execution Proceedings Dismissed:The Court dismissed the execution petitions initiated based on the invalid awards
Issue of Consideration: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER VERSUS R.K. PANDEY AND ANOTHER
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
