ADR Case list

1. Vinod Seth v Devinder Bajaj, Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran-If civil litigant is
denied effective relief, they will approach extra-judicial enforcers/underworld
2. Workmen of Government Silk Weaving Factory, Mysore v. Industrial Tribunal-SC upheld
validity of Industrial Tribunal passing award on basis of compromised settlement if
presiding officer shows application of mind in process.
3. K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi-Two tests to differentiate arbitration from expert decision.
i) Whether there exists an issue on which parties have not taken any position or
formulated dispute in which defined positions are taken
ii) Judicial functions of arbitral tribunal-decides based on evidence before it and
submissions made by parties. Expert decides applying his own expertise.
Held IFCI Chairman decision was expert decision.
4. State of Orissa v. Bhagyadar Dash-Even though contract mentioned dispute was to ‘be
referred to arbitration’ to Engineer, it did not involve any judicial determination and was
not binding on parties-hence held to be expert decision.
5. Anandagajapati Raju v. PVJ Raju-Arb and Conc Act based on party autonomy and
minimal judicial intervention-parties entered into arbitration agreement when case was
pending before SC-SC agreed to refer dispute to arbitration.
6. M. Dayananda Reddy v. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd-In absence of
clear intention of parties agreement of arbitration cannot and should not be inferred.
7. Gujurat Steel Ltd v. Workmen-Voluntary arbitral tribunal formed under Sec. 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act held to be statutory tribunal-parties could prefer appeal by WP to
HC.
8. Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks-Alternate remedy is a bar to writ
jurisdiction
9. Fair Air Engineers v. N.K Modi-Judicial authority has discretion to stay proceedings
under Sec. 34-Consumer forum may proceed with proceedings instead of referring to
arbitration
10. Skypar Courier Ltd v. National Insurance Co Ltd-SC said matter may be resolved by
arbitration while case was pending before consumer forum-however this is an exceptional
case
11. Gujurat Urja Vikash Nigam v. Essar Power-Provision under special law for appointing
arbitrator will override Section 11
12. S.B.P. v. Patel Engineering-Power under Sec. 11 is judicial in nature. If court finds 1)
Existence of arbitration agreement 2) it is valid, judicial authority can refer dispute to
arbitral tribunal
13. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam v. Verma Transport-Filing reply to suit or I.A. will not amount to
submitting to the jurisdiction of the court.
14. Yogi Agarwal v. M/S Inspiration Clothes-The existence of an arbitration agreement with
reference to some other transaction/contract to which plaintiff was or is a party,
unconnected with the transactions or contracts to which a suit relates, cannot be
considered as existence of an `arbitration agreement' in regard to the suit
transactions/contracts.
15. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc v. SBI Home Finance Ltd-Suit relating to sale of mortgaged
property is right in rem-affects third parties outside the dispute-cannot be referred to
arbitration.
16. Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia-Parties appointed 2 arbitrators who gave a
unanimous award-however SC held won’t be invalid-parties waived off their right to
object under Sec. 4-decision would have been the same regardless
17. The Sirsilk v. Govt of A.P.Publication of award under Industrial Disputes Act can be
withheld if parties have reached a settlement.
18. State of Orissa v. Gokulanand Jain; Hythro Power Corporation v. Delhi Transco-Power
under Sec. 11 is administrative not judicial, court cannot look at the validity or existence
of arbitration agreement.
19. International Airport Authority v. K.D. Bali-Held no reasonable apprehension of bias on
part of arbitrator simply because he had won lucky draw contest held by IAA
20. Krishnalal Bhagya v. Harish Chandra Reddy-Plea of lack of jurisdiction of arbitral
tribunal has to be raised before tribunal itself at the first instance.
 21. GAIL v. K.P. Constructions-Cannot challenge arbitral award for lack of jurisdiction under
Sec. 34 if not raised plea under Sec. 16.
22. Renusagar Power Co v. General Electric-Arbitral award is against ‘public policy’ if it is
contrary to 1) fundamental policy of Indian law 2) justice and morality 3) interest of India
23. ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd-Award can be set aside if it is patently illegal and illegality goes
to the root of the matter-term for liquidated damages in contract; hence against public
policy.
24. Sundaram Finance v. NEPC India Ltd-Party may request interim protection from court
during arbitral proceedings
25. Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading-Part 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can
be applicable to international commercial arbitration as well-application for interim relief
can be made.
26. Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Service Ltd-held, in case of
international commercial arbitration held out of India provisions of part-1 would apply
unless the parties by agreement express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions
Hence an application for setting aside the award passed in international commercial
arbitration can be filed in the Indian Courts.
27. Bharat Aluminium Co. & Others v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.-decided by
a constitutional bench on 6.9.2012 has overruled the above two cases and has held that
part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is applicable only to arbitrations which takes
place within the territory of India. Part I of Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 would
have no application to international commercial arbitration held outside India. Therefore,
such awards would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts when the same
are sought to be enforced in India in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II
of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
28. Smita Conductors Ltd v. Euro Alloys Ltd-the SC split the requirements of Art II(2) of the
New York Convention in to 4 parts---
1) A contract, containing an arbitration clause signed by the parties;
2) An Arbitration agreement signed by the parties
3) An Arbitration clause in a contract contained in exchange of letters or telegrams; and
4) An arbitral agreement contained in exchange of letters or telegrams
29. World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd v. MSM Satellite (Singapore) Ltd-SC held that in case
of arbitration agreements covered by the New York convention, the court which is seized
of the matter, will refer the parties to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is null
and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. It was stated that the arbitration
agreement being a separate agreement does not stand vitiated even if the main contract is
terminated, frustrated or voidable at the option of one party
30. Shin-Etsu Chemical Co Ltd v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd-(2005) 7 SCC 234-Justice Sabharwal
delivering the minority view held that Sec 45 casts an obligation upon the judicial
authority to record as to the validity of an arbitration agreement as stipulated in that
section and there is nothing to suggest that the finding to be recorded is to be prima facie.
This minority view has been approved in Chlorocontrols India Pvt Ltd v. Severn Trent
Water Purification Inc-(2013) 1 SCC 641-Findings under Sec. 8 final and not open to be
questioned before arbitral tribunal-however court has to determine at the threshold itself
31. Shri Lal Mahal Ltd v. Progetto Grano Spa-a 3 judge bench of the SC held that the
application of the public policy of India in sec 48 must be given a narrow and restrictive
meaning, since it pertains to enforcement of foreign awards