100 words summary of each of those judgments (Of all the Redefining contours of
Mediation & Arbitration Cases)
1- Voestalpine Schienen GmbH vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (10.02.2017 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0162/2017
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law
relating to domestic arbitration, inter alia, commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign
arbitral awards. Rule against bias is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice which
applied to all judicial and quasi judicial proceedings, says the petition. DMRC forwarded the list
of all 31 persons on its panel thereby giving a very wide choice to the Petitioner to nominate its
arbitrator. The parties should be given to the parties to nominate any person from the entire panel
of arbitrators.
2- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. Datar Switchgear Limited
and Ors. (18.01.2018 - SC) : MANU/SC/0017/2018
Appellant claimed damages for the entire contract, i.e. for the part which is performed and the
part of the contract which it was prevented from performing. The objects in question were
manufactured by Respondent to suit the specific needs of the Appellant and could not be used
otherwise.
3- Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. vs. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Ltd.
(07.02.2019 - SC) : MANU/SC/0157/2019
Appellant was awarded the contract under which it was to execute certain Works. Two claims
raised by the Appellant were referred for arbitration. High Court ruled that clauses categorically
provide that no interest would be payable to the contractor on the money due to him.
4- Elite Engineering and Construction (Hyd.) Private Limited vs. Techtrans Construction
India Private Limited (23.02.2018 - SC) : MANU/SC/0156/2018
High Court found that it was not intended to make the arbitration clause as a part of the contract
between the Appellant and the Respondent. Procedure relating to 'termination' was altogether
different from the resolution of disputes.
Disposition: Appeal Dismissed
5- Sharma and Associates Contractors (P) Ltd. vs. Progressive Constructions Ltd.
(10.02.2017 - SC) : MANU/SC/0161/2017
Contract executed between HSCL and the Respondent was proceeded by correspondent
exchange between the said parties. The High Court found that the claim was entertained by the
learned arbitrator on the basis of provisions in the contract. In a matter of contract where the
parties have to stick to govern by the provisions of the contract entered into between them,
equity has no role to play.
6- Y. Sleebachen vs. Superintending Engineer WRO/PWD (04.08.2014 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0679/2014
High Court set aside Trial Court's arbitral award in terms of agreed conditions between
Appellant and Government Pleader. Pleader was not authorised to record compromise on behalf
of Respondents/State as Pleader did not have authority to do so.
Hence, impugned order of High Court set aside and consent decrees passed by Trial Court
restored - Appeals allowed.
7- Shailesh Dhairyawan vs. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla (16.10.2015 - SC) :
MANU/SC/1206/2015
There is nothing in Clause 8 of the consent terms extracted above to show that the resignation of
Justice Sujata Manohar would lead to her vacancy not being supplied, says Ravi Agrawal.
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically provides that a Court hearing a suit may
formulate terms of settlement between the parties and may settle the same or refer the same for
settlement by conciliation, judicial settlement, mediation or arbitration. The intention of the
parties was to settle the matter through arbitration and not to come back to the Court again for
decision of the same dispute by court adjudicatory process.
In the case of the High Court, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff in a case relating to the
appointment of a substitute arbitrator in case of death or non-availability of the named arbitrator.
The court said the provision was given liberal interpretation so as to apply to all possible
circumstances under which the mandate of the earlier arbitrator may be terminated.
8- A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasivam and Ors. (04.10.2016 - SC) : MANU/SC/1179/2016
The Act does not make any provision excluding any category of disputes treating them as non-
arbitrable. Mere allegation of fraud simplicitor may not be a ground to nullify the effect of
arbitration agreement between the parties. Allegations of criminal wrongdoing or of statutory
violation would not detract from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve a dispute. The
basic principle which must guide judicial decision making is that arbitration is essentially a
voluntary assumption of an obligation by contracting parties to resolve their disputes through
private tribunal.
9- Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana (25.02.2014 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0156/2014
High Court not correct in holding that Clause 25 of original agreement in unamended form hold
field and arbitral Tribunal can be constituted for adjudication of disputes between appellant and
respondent.
10- Union of India (UOI) vs. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (16.09.2014 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0837/2014
Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal was set aside by the High Court. Tribunal members were unable to
find rhyme or justifiable reasons for why matter went on for almost four years. Members did not
mend their ways even when another life was given by granting three months to them. Members
took directions of High Court in cavalier manner to act in accordance with High Court's orders.
High Court found that Tribunal failed to perform its function and rightly. Order of High Court
terminating mandate of arbitral tribunal was flawless - Therefore, impugned order was
sustainable and required no interference - Appeal dismissed.
11- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. Datar Switchgear
Limited and Ors. (18.01.2018 - SC) : MANU/SC/0017/2018
Held, while dismissing the appeal: Out of B-2 category objects under the work order, 9515
objects were to be installed in Kolhapur Zone. Court noted that once it is established that the
party was justified in terminating the contract on account of fundamental breach thereof, then the
said innocent party is entitled to claim damages.
Disposition: Appeal Dismissed
