Top Arbitration Lawyers in Shimla | Law Firm

Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Galaxy Infra) is a company based in Vaishali, Bihar, that provides advisory services. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (Pravin Electricals), the Appellant, provides electricity supply services. South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd awarded the project to Pravin Electricals (SBPDCL). Galaxy Infra claims that under the terms of a Consultancy Agreement (Agreement), it made significant efforts to assist Pravin Electricals in obtaining the contract for which it was entitled to commission. Papers on Arbitration in Domestic and International Pravin Electricals denies ever agreeing to such a deal. Galaxy Infra invoked Article 14 of the agreement, which stipulated that a Sole Arbitrator be appointed. Pravin Electricals refused to carry out the order.

In allowing the appeal, the Apex Court stated that while there is some documentary evidence indicating that there is "some dealing between the Appellant and the Respondent qua a tender floated by SBPDCL," it is "insufficient to conclude that there is a concluded contract between the parties, which contains an arbitration clause." In Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation5 (Vidya Darolia), the Court held that the prima facie review can only lead to one conclusion on the facts of this case, "that a deeper consideration of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties must be left to an Arbitrator who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in detail after witnesses are cross-examined on the same.

The power of a judicial body to submit parties to arbitration when there is an arbitration agreement is discussed in Section 8. When people who are responsible for appointing an

arbitrator fail to do so, Section 11(6) applies. The existence of an arbitration agreement is examined in Section 11(6A), and such appointments are not appealable in Section 11(7).

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 deleted sub-sections 6A and 7 of Section 11. (Act 33). 8

Following the 246th Law Commission Report, Sections 8 and 11 were revised. The Supreme Court reflected amendments made by the 2015 amendment in Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd. v.

Pradyuat Deb Burman9 (Mayawati Trading). This case outlined three types of concerns that arise when the Court is asked for an appointment, and it reflected the method used by the Court.

The Court will have to decide whether the approached High Court is the forum conveniens or not, and whether the party that has applied is a party to the arbitration agreement or not in the first group. The Court has the option of deciding the second category of problems or deferring to the Arbitral Tribunal's decision. Top Arbitration Lawyers These difficulties have to do with establishing whether or not the claim is time-barred and whether or not the parties have completed the contract/transaction. The Court must delegate all issues to the Arbitral Tribunal in the third category. These are issues concerning the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction and the merits of the claims at hand.

The Court in Vidya Drolia11 established identical review standards to those established in Boghara12 and Mayavati Trading. 13 Furthermore, the Court concluded that if it becomes too hesitant to act, it may jeopardise the arbitration's and the Court's efficacy. It must not, however, conduct a complete full review or a lengthy review at the referral stage, as this would block and delay the process, compromising the integrity and effectiveness of

arbitration as a dispute resolution tool. If the legitimacy of the arbitration agreement cannot be determined on a prima facie basis, the Court should refer the case.

When it appears that a preliminary examination will be inconclusive or insufficient due to the need for further investigation, the matter should be referred to a lawyer.

In simple circumstances, the purpose of the prima facie review at the reference stage is to cut the weed. It is a primary first review, not a thorough review. As the Court stated in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.15, the Court should not get lost in the weeds when deciding factual disputes. Referral proceedings are not a mini-trial, but rather a preliminary and summarising process. Similarly, in Vimal Kishor Shah v. Jayesh Dinesh Shah16, the pre-arbitration criteria was whether there was a "good arguable case" that an arbitration agreement existed.

Sections 8, 11 and 37, respectively, deal with "referral to arbitration," "appointment of arbitrators," and the "scope of appealable orders." Section 11(6A) was added in response to a 2014 report by the LAW OF CONTRACT LATEST EDITION Commission of India, which stated that the scope of Section 11 examination should be limited to the "investigation of the existence of the arbitration agreement." Act 3317, on the other hand, removed Clause 6(A) of Section 11 as well as Clause 7 of Section 11, which banned appeals against orders made under Section 11. Only an order issued by a court can be appealed under Section 37. The scope of an appeal under Section 37 is limited to orders issued under Sections 8, 9, 34, 16,

and 17. There was already an appeals process in place for orders assigning parties to arbitration.

An order made under Section 8 of the Act might be appealed, while an order made under Section 11 was clearly non-appealable under Section 11. (7). Instead of redressing the imbalance, the 2019 amendment exacerbated it by excluding Section 11 from the bill (7).

There is no statutory provision prohibiting or permitting appeals from Section 11 orders. In the matter at hand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that Sections 8 and 11 should be equal in terms of appealability, and asked the Parliament to revisit Sections 37 and 11. (7).

The Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in this case exemplifies the judiciary's pro-arbitration stance. Furthermore, a ruling sustaining a prima-facie interference is consistent with international arbitration doctrine, which normally instructs courts not to evaluate the merits of matters intended for arbitration. 18 The legitimacy of the arbitration agreement must be determined prima facie in order to file an application under Section 8 of the Act. The considerations outlined in Vidya Drolia would be considered in a prima facie finding of the arbitration agreement's legitimacy. 19 The purpose of leaving Section 11(6A) out was to give an arbitral tribunal the jurisdiction to decide problems pertaining to arbitration agreements without the intrusion of the courts.

A restricted prima facie evaluation, on the other hand, has no bearing on the notion of competenz-competenz. 20 It's possible that the removal of Section 11(7) was done with the goal of making section 11 orders appealable. However, the legislature's failure to state it directly produced a cloud of uncertainty about the appealability of Section 11 orders. The Parliament must seek a change to the Act with regard to the relevant provisions, so that orders made under Sections 8 and 11 can be appealed.