A.

Session 4 and 5
1. UOI v. Hardy Exploration SC 2019
a. Kuala Lumpur was made the venue of the arbitration.
b. Court held that, merely mentioning the venue would not make it the seat
of arbitration. There must be something else also present to make the
venue as the seat of arbitration.
c. Also, if there is a condition precedent in the arbitration agreement, it must
be satisfied.
2. BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC SC 2020
a. New Delhi was made the venue and not Faridabad.
b. Court held Bright Line Test or Shoshua Test, where the court held that if
i. There is a venue and no contrary indication of it being only the
venue as words like ‘meet’ or to be conducted in a specific place.
ii. No other place as the seat of arbitration.
iii. Supernational rules of governing arbitration to be applied.
iv. No contrary indica of any other seat.
3. Mankatsu Impex Private Ltd. V. Airvisual Ltd. SC 2020
a. Hong Kong was made as the place of arbitration with the arbitration to be
administered in Hong Kong.
b. Court held that the conduct of the parties and other clauses of the
arbitration agreement would determine the seat of the contract.
4. Brahamini Pellates Ltd. V. Kamachi Ltd 2019 SC.
a. Application to Madras High Court while the Odisha High Court had the
jurisdiction of the case.
b. Court held that in case of two or more courts having the subject matter of
the suit, making their jurisdiction. The parties making the choice of
jurisdiction will exclude other court’(s) jurisdiction.
5. Aif Azin Co. Ltd. V. MicroMax 2024 SC
a. Case of Dubai made as the venue.
b. The rule BGS SGS SOMA Ltd is upheld.
c. Close connection test for cases where venue is mentioned, has been
denied. However, it is upheld in cases where venue is also mentioned as
important.
d. Where two places are designated as a venue, the most feasible venue,
intention of the parties.
6. PASL Wind Corporation Pvt. Ltd. V. GE Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
a. Case where the agreement and tribunal mentioned Zurich as the seat.
b. Non-application of close connection test.
c. Two Indian parties can make foreign seat, no contravention of public
policy under s. 23 of ICA.
B. Session 6
1. Bhatia
 a. Court held that the omission of the word only in the case of s. 2(2) of the
ACA makes that Part I of the ACA applies to Arbitration where seat is
outside in India, if the arbitration not expressly debars.
2. BALCO
a. Court in territoriality principle held that only that court which is the seat
of arbitration can award injunction, interim relief and Part I has no
application.
3. Amendment to s. 2(2)
a. Legislature said that section 9, 27 and 37(1)(a) and 37(b).
4. Booz Allen
a. Property case of something.
b. Court held that there is distinction between s. 8 and s. 11.
c. Three question for arbitration
i. Whether matter is arbitrable?
ii. Whether covered by the arbitration agreement?
iii. Whether the matter is refered to arbitration by the parties.?
d. Right in rem are non-arbitrable, right in personam is.
e. Rights in public for a are non-arbitrable.
5. Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. V. HSBC
a. Case of investment made, which is alleged to be made out of fraud caused.
b. Court held that the matter will fall under the domain of frauds which are
non-arbitrable only if,
i. The proceedings are non-arbitrable due to the fact that the fraud
had viciated the whole contract including the arbitration agreemet.
ii. The fraud was done by an instrumentality of the State.
c. Held that merely because a criminal proceeding can be initiated, would
not make the arbitration proceeding unavailable.
6. Vidya Drolia v. Surga Trading Company
a. 4 cases of non-arbitrable matters-
i. Right in rem.
ii. Affects third party rights.
iii. Cause of action arose out of Sovereign function.
iv. Mandatorily barred by a statute.
C. Sessions 7-9
1. SMS Tea Estate v. Chandramani Tea Pvt. Ltd.
a. Lease of two tea estates.
b. Court held that an inadequately registered instrument would not affect
the collateral arbitration agreement. The collateral arbitration agreement
would remain enforceable and unaffected. Only if such arbitration
agreement is also not void due to the voidablity under s.19 of ICA or so.
c. An inadrrquately stamped document is however, not permitted to be used,
unless the stamp duty is paid to the authority.
2. M/s Young Achievers v. M/s Learning Resources
 a. Case where a contract was suspended through the existence of a new
contract which did not even talked about the arbitration agreement.
b. Court held that the existence of the arbitration agreement is dependednt
on the existence of the contract. Thus, such novation would make the
initial contract, invalid.
3. NN Global 2 {5 Judge}
a. Court on the aspect of Severability held that the arbitration agreement
should be a valid contract and only then it could be enforced.
b. On the aspect of stamping the court held that an inadequately stamped
arbitration agreement cannot be used if either it is part of a contract or
another contract which requires stamping.
4. In re interplay between Arbitration Act and Stamp Act
a. Court held that an inadequately stamped document cannot be said to be
dismissed by the court and the inquiry would be restricted to prima facie
existance of an arbitration agreement under s. 11 or s. 8 of the ACA.
D. Session 10-12
1. MR Engineers v. Somdutt Builders
a. Case where the court held that for an incorporation. There must be a
specific indication of the incorporation. Along with the intention to
incorporate clear. Also, the clauses should not be repugnant to other parts
of the contract.
b. Standard form of contract can have the exception of general reference to
incorporation.
2. Inox Winds v. Thermocables Ltd.
a. Court held that in a single contract between the same parties, the
reference to a standard form of contract in any matter is sufficient to hold
the arbitration agreement as a part of the standard form of contract.
3. NBCC India Limited v. Zillion Infraprojects
a. Case where the court held that the incorporation of the arbitration clause
is not valid as it is a two contract situation. Also, reference to the
jurisdiction of the civil court in Delhi is mentioned.
4. Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H Pandya
a. Court held that there cannot be bifurcation of the subject matter and non-
parties cannot be forced to arbitrate, where such parties has not opted for
arbitration.
b. So, the matter cannot be sent for arbitration as the matter is arbitrable
partly.
5. Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification
a. 4 pronge test:-
i. A direct relationship between non-signatory and signatory.
ii. Direct commonality of the subject matter and the agreement
between the parties being a composite transaction. Involvement of
parent and sister company.
 iii. The transaction should be of a composite nature where
performance of mother agreement may not be feasible without aid,
execution and performance of the supplementary or ancillary
agreements, for achieving the common object and collectively
having bearing on the dispute.
iv. Whether a composite reference of such parties would serve the
ends of justice.
6. MTNL v Canara Bank
a. Court held that the Group of Companies Doctrine could also be held in
cases where the structure is so tightly linked due to its structure or
function that the companies emerge as one economic entity. Thus, the
case can be arbitrated.
7. Shapoorji Pallonji v Rattan India Power Ltd.
a. Court held that the parent company was almost as the alter ego of the
subsidiary. The subsidiary did not have any office of its own and the
subsidiary was an economic unit with its parent. Thus using the Doctrine
of Group of Companies.
8. Cox and Kings v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.
a. The court held that the doctrine of group of companies cannot be traced
through the definition under s. 8 and 45 and the definition of party under
s. 2(1)(h) and s. 7 is important.
b. Doctrine of Group of companies cannot be invoked solely on the basis of
the doctrine of economic reality.
c. The arbitrator will decide based on the decision in ONGC.
E. Session 13
1. CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. v BPL Communications Ltd.
a. Court held that the court should not have intervened, holding under s. 5 of
the ACA, the court held under s. 5 the court can intervene only for the
restricted procedure as mentioned in the ACA.
2. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v Aftab Singh
a. Court held that if the matter is refered to a special rremedy, it can’t be sent
to arbitration.
3. DMRCL v. DAMEPL
a. Court held that setting aside the order of the arbutral award is necessary
as material document is not eexamined and the reasoning of the tribunal
cannot be used to bring the outcome which is brought in the present case.
F. Session 14
1. Anand Gajapathi v PVG Raju
a. The Court held that under Section 8 of the ACA, the court has minimal
judicial intervention. Thus, the courts should refer the matter to
arbitration on a prima facie existance of an arbitration agreement.
b. The court held that even in appeal, if the arbitration agreement is formed
after the initiation of the suit in the lower court and a reference is sought
 in the appeal stage. It would be allowed. Also, if the agreement was before
the initiation of the original suit and they had an opportunity to ask the
same in the lower courts, then also a reference under s. 89 of the CPC is
allowed.
2. Shin-Etsu Chemical v Aksh Optifibres
a. Court held that even in s. 45 of the ACA, the reference made is based on a
prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement and not full fledged
judgement on the merits of the existence of the agreement.
3. SBP v Patel Engineering
a. Not a good law anymore. Held that the Court under s.11(6) can exercises a
judicial function and thus can look into various aspects of the reference.
Now, there is presence of s. 11(6A), so not a good law anymore.
4. Booz Allen & Hamilton v SBI Home Finance
a. Court held that the filing of application, statement or affidavit before filing
of the Written statement with the intention to fight the case would not
allow reference as submission of first statement on the dispute is made.
b. However, the court would not consider the reply to an interlocutory
application, to be a first submission to the court under s.8.
G. Session 15
1. Sundaram Finance v NEPC (1999)
a. Court held that the interim application under s.9 of the ACA can be made
even before an application under s. 21 of the ACA is made for the starting
of the arbitration proceedings. Where the court will first look into the
existance of arbitration agreement and the agreement covering the matter
at hand and then it would provide the relief under s. 9 of the ACA.
2. Firm Ashok Traders v Gurumukh Das (2004)
a. Court held that the interim relief under s. 9 of the ACA is a relief which is
given to a party due to it being a party in an arbitration agreement. It is
neither a suit nor a remedy coming out of the contract.
3. Adhunik Steels v Orissa Manganese and Minerals 2007
a. Court held that while granting a relief under s. 9 of the ACA, the court
should keep in mind the basic principles of granting interim injunction of
the three prong test mentioned.
4. Arvind Constructions v Kalinga Mining Corp. 2007
a. Court held that the case is of s. 9 ACA application and general principles of
awarding the interim injunction will apply.
5. Prabhat Steel Traders (P) Ltd. v. Excel Metal Processors (P) Ltd., 2018
a. Court held that an appeal under s. 37 from an interim application of the
court can also be made by a third party.
H. Session 25
1. Konkan Railway Corp. Ltd. v Rani Constructions Ltd.
a. Section 11 is an administrative power and not judicial power. Court will
not go into aspects of jurisdiction or validity. Tribunal will look into that.
2. SBP & Co. v Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005)
a. Court held that under s. 11 of the ACA, the court is execising a judicial
function and not an adjudicative function. Thus, the court have power to
look into the preliminary issue at hand.
3. Duro Felguera v Gangavaram Port Ltd. (2017)
a. Court held that the prima faciee examination under the s. 8 and s. 11 of
the ACA exist.
4. United India Insurance v Hyundai Engineering (2018)
a. Court held that the condition precedent attached to the arbitration
agreement or denial or objection of the liability of the arbitration
agreement would require the complete acceptance of the party.
5. Pravin Electricals (P) Ltd. v. Galaxy Infra & Engg. (P) Ltd., (2021)
a. Court held that under s. 8 of the ACA, things are appealable. However,
under s. 11 orders of the court is not appealable.
6. Lion Engineering v State of MP (2018) 16 SCC 758
a. Court held that under the public policy of India, is the public policy of the
law enforced in India.
b. Also, under s. 16 and s. 34 are two different powers and cannot be
equated to be the same under the ACA.
6. Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd. v. Janardan Nirman (P) Ltd., (2020)
a. Court held that under s. 10, number of arbitrator must be odd.
b. S. 16 is for both width and also composition of the arbitration tribunal
which is root, even though the party has been a part of the appointment of
arbitrator.
c. Waiver under s. 4.
7. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV, 2022
a. Court held that the arbitrator cannot decide on his fees on his own
discretion. The party should suggest this or the help of the Foutth
Schedule should be taken. The first four sitting should decide on the same.
8. Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd.
a. Court held that arbitrator who do not have conection with the party or
anything merely by being a worker in a PSU/ Government Department
cannot be held to be denied to be an arbitrator.
b. Court also held that the other clauses of appointment is actually violating
the right of the party to appoint an arbitrator.
9. Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., 2019
a. Court held that for the appointment of the sole arbitrator, the MD cannot
by himself be an arbitrator or appoint an arbitrator just by himself.
b. Denied under Seventh Schedule (Red List) or Fifth Schedule (Orange List).
c. Panel of 31 should have other people also.
[Link] Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A
Joint Venture Co., 2024
 a. Court held that the arbitrator should not be unilateral appointed. Violate
Art. 14.
b. Apprehension of bias can disqualify arbitrator.
c. Pecuniary, legal or proporiatory or other bias would allow
disqualification.
d. Enpanelment for arbitrator is allowed but the other party cannot be
forced to choose from the panel.
I. Session 28
1. Renusagat
a. Public policy under s. 34 is (i) fundamental policy of Indian law; or (ii) the
interests of India; or (iii) justice or morality
2. Yangsung
a. Court held that public policy would only be i. and iii. Of Renusagar and
patent illegality which is added by amendment would be present. No
other means.
b. Also, the amendment would have retrospective effect.

Session 16

1. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005)

a. Court held that under Section 89, the court shall refer the matter to
arbitration, if one the elements of the successful ADR is met. Also, if the
court is satisfied it may reformulate the terms as given by the process.
2. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. P. Ltd. (2010)
a. Court held that the arbitration and conciliation is a process where the
consent of both the parties is required. Rest the court can refer the 3 ADR
processes, based on availability.
b. Section 89(2) (c) and (d) are interchanged with each other.
3. Patil Automation v. Rakheja Engineers (2022)
a. Court held that under s. 12 A of the Comercial Courts Act, the case has to
bee mandatorily mediated if possible and no interim relief is urgently
required. The case if not mandatorily given a try for mediation must be
held invalid under O10 R11 of the CPC.
4. State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, (2008)
a. Court held that for the Lok Adalat, the award is final and conciliatory. No
adjudication or appeal from the same is allowed.
5. B.P. Moideen Sevamandir v. A.M. Kutty Hassan (2009)
a. Court held that the Lok Adalat shall either file a failure report or give a
settlement in the case. Also, the failure report should not contain the
conduct of a party in the settlement process.
6. Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, (2018)
a. Court held that an appeal under section 226 and 227 is only allowed for a
settlement reached by the Lok Adalat. The other remedies do not exist of
normal civil court.