Recently, the Delhi High Court in Ovington Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Bindiya Nagar held that the court for the purpose of extension of an arbitral tribunal’s mandate is the court that appointed the arbit...
Published On: 30/04/2020
Practice Area: Dispute Resolution
Authors:
Mohit Chadha
Swati Mittal
Vaishnavi Rao
As obvious as it is, one of the keys objects behind the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'Act') was to minimize the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process. For the said reason, the scope of powers of a 'Court' under Sections 34 of the Act while dealing with challenges to an arbitral award was kept limited. A party further aggrieved by an order passed by a 'Court' under Section 34 has the right to appeal under Section 37 of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment titled MMTC Ltd. v. Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty. Ltd. ('MMTC Case') decided on March 02, 2020, despite its restrictions, has taken a unique stand as to what may be deemed perverse in law for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37 of the Act. In light of INDUSLAW's Mohit Chadha, Vaishnavi Rao and Swati Mittal discuss the impact of the MMTC Case.
